Pakistan refuses US Aid to protest OBL Killing

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
If countries could actually count on the UN charter and international law protecting them from invasion, they wouldn't need nukes so much.

If Saddam actually had nukes, he might not have been invaded. If Iran had nukes, they might not have had their government overthrown, might not have been invaded by Iraq, might not have as much concern about potential military attack now. Any country that might be attacked benefits greatly from that deterrent.

However, that deterrent is also hugely dangerous for the world. At some point, it can go from being a deterrent to a miscalculation where they are used.

This is one reason why there were such concerns about undermining every country's feeling of protection with the invasion of Iraq.

Some here, though, are ideological enemies against the UN preventing aggressive war.

North Korea has a nut for a leader who is interested in one thing and that's having nukes. Nations want to invade NK about as much as annexing Uganda and the people who are starving there aren't having a problem with the western world, but their leadership.