Why would any state trust the US after the Iraq War?

[closeupready]

I was just thinking the other day about the notion of a nukeless state somewhere, watching the Iraq War from a distance, and given the ease with which the US invaded (for no good reason) and continues to occupy Iraq, and why would they want to remain weak when the evidence is clear that weakness means lack of sovereignty.

In other words, given the chance to arm themselves in a world like we have today, what are the reasons why a state would decide to not exercise that choice? What are the advantages to remaining militarily weak?

More specifically, I'm thinking in terms of Pakistan/India. Why would either of those states voluntarily decommission its nukes? Why would Israel? Would the US ever destroy its arsenal? I can't see it happening, because that's considered a strength.

anyway, what are your thoughts?

[The Wielding Truth]

1. When * sent out the axis of evil contract, they all had to posture.

[closeupready]

2. Good point.

I guess the answer is obvious, judging by the lack of responses - they wouldn't. Much, if not all, of the trust which the US engendered prior to 2000 is gone.

[htuttle]

3. Our 'word' nowdays...

...isn't worth a warm bucket of spit. Sign a treaty with us, and we'll either ignore it, or just nullify it. Make a deal with us, and get screwed, or worse, invaded.

You can't trust us anymore.