|
[quote=tw]Should a leader be tried if he builds weapons of mass destruction, uses those weapons in defense of his country, and loses the war? If the leader was told he was going to be attacked, and did not build those WMDs, then clearly he would be the enemy of his country - deserve to be impeached or assassinated.[quote]
ok. in my opinion...
because there are already nuclear powers in the world, other nations are automatically going to follow with their own nuclear weapons programs. as a leader of a nation in a world run by nuclear powers, it is only logical to arm yourself in defense of nuclear attack, especially when the power seeking unilateral hegemony has shown in the past it is not shy about using WMD; if we continue to raise the bar, other nations will only try to catch up. it's an arms race. if China developed a weapon that could control a localized black hole, we would undoubtly develop one ourselves, and iran, n korea, and others would follow as they desire to "play ball" with the world powers.
now, america has only recently complicated this by introducing the pre-emptive strike against iraq. If a nation can attack another nation on false intelligence and the UN allows it to happen without consequence, then it follows that ANY nation could by the same standards attack another nation and legally get away with it.
so, exponential arms race + unilateral hegemonous nuclear power + weak diplomatic communications between nations + new pre-emptive strike policy = ?
|