So ultimately I think it was world opinion, as a composite, which offered some insurance to non-nuclear nations that they wouldn't be bullied by any thug with a nuke.
I can't see how it did that at all. It doesn't seem to have stopped the US doing whatever it liked.
Now that Bush has undermined that world consensus against pre-emptive attack, it's no surprise that every country is scrabbling to cover itself.
Well, Israel, India and Pakistan all seem to have been doing so long before the world concensus fell apart, if there was one in the first place.
I'm not convinced there _were_ any checks and balances in place before. I certainly can't see much evidence of them.
The point I was making was that the UN hasn't been terribly good at stopping people developing nuclear weapons. The fact that three countries openly said they weren't going to forgo them doesn't really change that.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I can't see how it did that at all. It doesn't seem to have stopped the US doing whatever it liked.
Now that Bush has undermined that world consensus against pre-emptive attack, it's no surprise that every country is scrabbling to cover itself.
Well, Israel, India and Pakistan all seem to have been doing so long before the world concensus fell apart, if there was one in the first place.
I'm not convinced there _were_ any checks and balances in place before. I certainly can't see much evidence of them.
no subject
are all non-signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaties. Iran *is* a signatory.
no subject