Well, you seem to have more faith in the US nuclear umbrella guarantee for the Middle East than I have. On the contrary I doubt the US would use their nukes if such a scenario were to happen and if they were to be protected by the US nuclear umbrella it is of little consolation to have that kind of guarantee when been nuked.  The proliferation of nuclear weapons would undoubtedly lead to fear and fear was and still is one of the main components in the outbreak of an arms race.

Disarmament was the end goal, and my argument is that disarmament of existing states and non-proliferation go hand in hand: dozens of new countries would not have the incentive (or at least have lesser incentive and rhetorical excuses) to turn nuclear if disarmament of the rest would be on-going (or at least they stopped issuing first-strike threats).

Yes, I do agree with you when you say:(.....)disarmament of existing states and non-proliferation go hand in hand(.....), still it is a fact that we have been living with nuclear weapons controlled by certain states without them ever being used since 1945, even when the doctrine of first strike was introduced and no European country, except from France and Great Britain, developed nuclear weapons capability during that time even if the threat of war and the level of fear was very real. That is why I find the argument of fear being somewhat circumstantial and possibly being used as a front in covering up other agendas.  

Upon re-reading I often find my own words offensive-sounding, while when I wrote them it was just a terse way of putting my opinion, and when there were points of agreement I haven't acknowledged them. So hereby I also state that I, too, find your points, and also points of others I responded to critically, intriguing and worth for consideration.

Well, I have never found your comments here on ET offensive, on the contrary, I have always read your comments with utmost interest.  

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.