>the UN apologists
Apologize for what? That the UN doesnt work if you're the US+UK and tell them to "kiss my ass" ? Again, the UN depends on the agreements and actions of its members.
If the desagreement is strong enough, or the military/economical might of the "stray" country is strong enough, it can stop de effectiveness of the mediation of the UN. If it was China or Russia for that matter, it would still reach a break point .
Besides, the UN can impose or force them (US/UK) to do squat . It doesnt work like that.
A diplomatic approach to a subject of this complexity is the first step in solving it, not "the way of the gun".
>Gall states that an organization, once created, then
>starts to define and satisfy its 'needs', rather than
>solving the task for which it was created
Very true. There are inumerous books on the inercias of an organization and their internal goals and disputes formed by groups. Interesting reading .
-------------
Back to the initial topic.
IMO, one of the reasons that there are so many WMD , is due to the fact that there's a sentiment of insecurity in a good number of countrys in the world. Specially african and middle eastern countrys. Those in particular, have been in war with each others , or internally since ...well almost forever. And Russian and the US always had that feeling of paranoia against nuclear countrys.
Second reason is simply, dick size. Something that was clearly developed during the Cold War towards nukes. The constant competition between the US and Russia led to many other countrys to see it as a way to earn respect, to some extent, by "light fear". They see it as a method to gain respect, and a dissuasion to have a future military intervention if things go "really wrong". North Korea is a good example. They dont want to be next in list for "ass whooping" so, make it with the mushroom bombs. Nobody is going to really use nukes, so it boils down to that in the end.
good enough for an ontopic?
