Sykora said:True. But if nobody had them, the extra resources could be put in better places. I have no objection to missile defense. It is the offensive power I find unnecessary.
Frankly Dear, the world already has enough extra resources to take care of people in trouble, What is lacking is the will of politicians.
The politicians are as unwilling to invest in development as they are unwilling to fire nukes. I am not saying that they are totally idiots, they do strike on good ideas, like the Palna scheme where the govt is going to adopt girl child if parents are unwilling to keep it but frankly this is going to make more people leave their children to govt care. If they can mount such a thing they have more than enough resources, also the scheme is good but what if some one leaves a boy? They cant leave the kid alone as that would be barbarianism but the boy cant be financed because of the law.
The problem is not lack of resources, but vested interests and lack of will and complications which occur from case to case and time to time which can both be good and bad.
Sykora said:On the other hand, if any country used a nuke against another country, whether their target had them or not, the rest of the world would be forced to guard their interests. That in itself would be a sufficient deterrent for most countries.
I already mentioned terrorists are excluded