Dear Teribus,

I respect your views but can't fully agree as I said above! I have heard it said in much political rhetoric (of more than one country) that they have the "moral high ground" in a particular issue.

The idea that the option exists to abide by the laws that suit you, while ignoring the ones you don't, is ludicrous.

Perhaps why the USA refused to sign the Bioweapons Convention in 2001 (which would have been a legally-binding treaty), as it would have meant inspectors coming in to check?

On offensive vs. defensive weapons (leaving aside nuclear weapons for the moment) what about a long-range bomber vs. a fighter/interceptor?

With goodwill,

mooman