I don't share your point of view at all and only a fool would blindly assume that people do share your views.


WEB

So far the following facts have been established:

1 You're saying that "Any country that has long range ballistic missiles is a threat to the United States."

2 France and Britain has ICBM's or anything that could damage the US

3 North Korea has less than a dozen of long-ranging missiles

4 500 British or French nuclear missiles are less threatening to the US than 5 North Korean nuclear weapons.

IOW - the reason, then, necessarily is that UK/France are friends of the US and the North Korean are not, and amity and enmity is a function of shared understandings, something we could also call the social dimension of the threat. So you share my ponit of view.

Firstly, your numbers appear to be made up here. More importantly, calling this a socially constructed reality is just mere obfuscation. You could say that Al Qaeda's terrorism on the US is a product of the US' failure to get along with Muslims, and thus since this is a social construct, that we should not try to fight against Al Qaeda. We can say that Russia as a nation is a social construct and that many of its people wish to be free of the federation and found their own ethnic states, therefore Russia should be dissolved. We could go on and on about how everything is a social construct and therefore has no meaning, and since nothing has any meaning anything is justified.

There is no logic or stated purpose to your social construction line of thought. You have stated that you favor international law over morality, and this is rather apparent considering that you say that you consider China and Russia the most trustworthy nations in the world. Your way is nothing more than anti-Americanism and blind faith in something as unrealistic, amoral, and inflexible as international law.


WEB