[Helm]

Okay let's take this from the top. You are making a distinction between weapons of mass destruction (nuclear warheads and anything with a 'significant' (ugh) blast radius ) over 'smart' munitions that can maximise efficiency and minimise error, right?

As far I can understand this, any OFFENSIVE military system that has been designed towards aquiring targets outside the radius of the owner's country in question differs from WMD's only in the amount of damage it's designed to inflict. I'm not saying it's a negligible difference, but it doesn't negate the argument. If you have a bomb that can fly from D.C. to Afghanistan, I don't care how many people it will take out, it's still just the same as N.Korea having same weapons. Doesn't give you the right to 'step in' no more than it gives N.Korea the right to do the same.

So, and correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying (to negate my original 'qualm' argument) that 'smart' weapons, yeah, you have no qualms about using, whereas we've yet to emply WMDs in a post WW2 combat situation. And that makes you responsible fellows.

I'm not arguing the validity of that claim (although I could and I should, since there's room for further clarification. How does a nepleted uranium bomb exactly, which will leave the ground it hit contaminated for thousands of years and will be to blame for tens of teratogeneses to follow, not count as a 'weapon of mass destruction'?) however, I think your retort in itself is complete bulshit.

This is a ludicrous statement as, but our very refusal to use such munitions, we have illustrated our propensity to act responsibly.

Is there a responsible use for an offensive weapon system? Is it when the other fellow is 'evil'? Especially in a "strike first scenario (of the likes we've witnessed in oh, three US wars in the last 8 years? ) Furthermore, is your apparent eagerness to use 'smart' weapons proof of your propensity to not act responsibly? Does the "number of lives lost per bomb" ratio in an arbitary, unjust and frankly imperialistic war even make an actual difference as far as ethics go? There's no argument there.

Other nations, such as Israel, Pakistan, India and, of course the ever popular No Korea, have threatened nuclear retaliation in the past. . .I believe in doing so, they have shown themselves singularly unfit to wield nuclear wareheads.

The only country that insofar has not threatened, but actualy used nuclear weapons in a war is the US. And I believe that speaks volumes about who is most unfit to wield nuclear weaponry. You set yourself up for that one. I can't believe you tried to turn that around and claim some silly "we've done it... so we know what horror it can create. It's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it!" fairytale.

And let's not talk about the cold war and how many times the US has threatened nuclear retaliation. Not a valid argument in itself either, that one.


So, bottom line: I do not see any ethical distinction between a dep. uranium smart bomb and a nuclear warhead, and even if there was such, any country's eagerness to resort to using the latter does not in any case make it 'okay' for them to have them. This is an issue of global interest conflicts, and we both know no country should have to 'trust' the US with being the one to arrange who and why should have nuclear bombs.