Nato: Pre-empting pre-emptive doctrines

“The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.”

I wonder, would this doctrine of pre-emptiveness justify the targeted nuclear-bearing nation to adopt it’s own pre-emptive policy against the nuclear-bearing Nato country that has adopted said doctrine of pre-emptiveness against aforementioned targeted nation?

For more confusion, read here.


2 responses to this post.

  1. Let me suppose for a moment that I live in a nuclear country with bellicose attitudes. Would I admit being targetted for a preemptive nuclear attack?

    I don’t think so, as I don’t think any country would resort to it much that they wish to. Craze people can be seen around us but it’s presumable belligerent governments have sufficient reasoning to forswear using these lethal weapons, as it would definitively mean a generalised destruction of life in our planet.

    I am inclined to believe that the statement of these military experts has been made to dissuade others from the use of nuclear weapons, or rather from trying to build them.


  2. Yes, and it’s a good thing that they’re all talk in this case. Hot air and no substance.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: