The logic is that if you put the world at risk, there should be consequences for that.
If you want the world to come running when you fall on hard times (and this can hardly be considered that, yet aid comes all the same) then you should give up your weapons of mass destruction.
If there’s no consequence for having them, eventually everyone will have them. And then very rapidly nobody will. And that won’t be a good day.
Ok. I kind of get your point. It seems like almost any country can put the world at risk though, with or without nukes.
Aid isn’t given on how not-powerful a country is but how beneficial it is to the country supplying the aid. For example the us will prop up dictators it hates if it serves their interests. Topple democracies if it helps their interests. Nukes or no nukes it only makes sense. It would be nice if countries were all trying to make the best world to live in, but we aren’t there yet, and I’m sure you know that.
The logic is that if you put the world at risk, there should be consequences for that.
If you want the world to come running when you fall on hard times (and this can hardly be considered that, yet aid comes all the same) then you should give up your weapons of mass destruction.
If there’s no consequence for having them, eventually everyone will have them. And then very rapidly nobody will. And that won’t be a good day.
Ok. I kind of get your point. It seems like almost any country can put the world at risk though, with or without nukes. Aid isn’t given on how not-powerful a country is but how beneficial it is to the country supplying the aid. For example the us will prop up dictators it hates if it serves their interests. Topple democracies if it helps their interests. Nukes or no nukes it only makes sense. It would be nice if countries were all trying to make the best world to live in, but we aren’t there yet, and I’m sure you know that.