has nuclear weapons and 2) hasn't signed onto nonproliferation treaties should be bombed into the stone age.
So, who do you want to start bombing then? Because there are 8 countries confirmed (and almost certainly a 9th country) who have nukes, and only 5 of them have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
If you start by bombing India then you probably need to go after Pakistan at the same time (or vice versa) but geopolitically they are relatively stable. North Korea has nukes (likely not good nukes, but still nukes) but is definitely not stable. But, if you want an active warmonger who almost certainly has nukes I assume you think we should, as you put it, bomb Israel into the stone age?
Going by the criteria that the US pretends to follow but only does selectively would mean war with Israel, then India, then Pakistan. And that would be much better for our country than war with Iran.
So, who do you want to start bombing then? Because there are 8 countries confirmed (and almost certainly a 9th country) who have nukes, and only 5 of them have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
If you start by bombing India then you probably need to go after Pakistan at the same time (or vice versa) but geopolitically they are relatively stable. North Korea has nukes (likely not good nukes, but still nukes) but is definitely not stable. But, if you want an active warmonger who almost certainly has nukes I assume you think we should, as you put it, bomb Israel into the stone age?
That's the joke.
Going by the criteria that the US pretends to follow but only does selectively would mean war with Israel, then India, then Pakistan. And that would be much better for our country than war with Iran.