The Problem with PollingIs that you often get uninformed responses. Get this
polling result:
Two-thirds of Americans say no nation should have nuclear weapons, including the U.S., and most of the others say no more countries should get them.I agree with the second part, but the first part is just silly. Perhaps an analogous situation will explain best. Back in 1982, when I lived in San Francisco, then-Mayor Diane Feinstein passed a law banning handguns in the city. At the time, being a fairly liberal person (but already starting to have my doubts), I commented that I didn't have a gun, and therefore I would be safer if my neighbor didn't have a gun. Now this may be true in one sense (I would certainly be safer if I ever got into a fight with my neighbor), but in another sense it's very untrue. Burglars and home-invaders, for example, would be far more likely to target my residence, since they could be reasonably sure that they would not meet armed resistance.
Indeed, in the UK, which has largely banned all guns with the exception of hunting pieces, relying instead on security alarms, the new MO for burglars is to ring the doorbell, cosh the person who answers over the head, and then rob the place at their leisure. This is why a
majority of burglaries in the UK occur when the owner is at home, while in the US only a small fraction of burglaries happen that way. Those types of burglaries are far more dangerous for the homeowner.
The same applies to countries. The threat of nuclear retaliation is an awfully good deterrent to invasion, and the fact that the particular country you're invading may not have nukes doesn't necessarily matter. Why did Saddam not use gas against our troops during the first and second Persian Gulf Wars? Could it possibly be because he knew that the response could be devastating?
