Rath said:
I disagree. Many of the worst atrocities in the 20th century were committed by Western states, for example the Holocaust, the Gulags, the bombing of Dresden, the My Lai massacre and Srebrenica. Western states have been and still are capable of evil. That doesn't change the fact that generally they are far more stable and far less likely to use their bombs or have them fall into the wrong hands than states like Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. |
I think he was being facetious.
Because the moral or righteous side is invariably the side that the person making the argument is on, right?
As for the US being the first and only nation to use a nuclear device against another nation (in war time), they're also the only nation to put a man on the moon and yet I don't see too many nations succesfully repeating that feat either.
And generally speaking yes, the more stable a governing body, the less likely the decision to deploy nuclear weapons will be made. That said, it's not Pakistan, North Korea or even Iran (if/when they develop them) that anyone needs to worry about using them so much as any fringe group with little or nothing to lose they might be willing to sell them to.







