

Nuclear endgame: The growing appeal of zero - bchjam
http://www.economist.com/node/18836134

======
serichsen
Heh, yeah, but...

The problem is that Libya consented not to have nuclear weapons. Now everyone
does what they want with Libya.

Nuclear weapons do work as a deterrent, but small countries profit orders of
magnitude more from this than big ones, which are hard to attack anyway. That
small countries are able to defend themselves against the US is the main
reason for the US to exert so much pressure against "proliferation".

~~~
drzaiusapelord
Libyan nuclear facilities would have been destroyed in the initial bombing
pretty quickly. I'm not sure if the nuclear argument holds water if you don't
have an amazing AA system in place already or at least several levels of
parity with your enemy. Even then a launch would mean a nuclear retaliation,
and I suspect most leaders wouldn't chance that.

~~~
Someone
I doubt there would have been an initial bombing if there was even a minute
chance that Napels, Rome or Marseille (or Tel Aviv; it is a bit farther away,
but even a half attempt at hitting that could have grave consequences) would
have been targeted in response.

Politicians know that; that is why they threaten the nuclear card when they
can, even though I think most wouldn't dare play it.

