Seems to me that "other enemies" with "dirty nukes" would've used 'em by now if they had 'em. I don't see how a formal declaration of war would've affected that decision one way or the other. If they hate us, they hate us and wouldn't wait for an excuse to use "dirty nukes".
Nah... they know the "word" thing. Since President Bush didn't do an outright declaration of words in re the War.. they figure.. ah... we're in for a deal, using words.
Foolishness. During the Clinton years, Korea had its missiles "aimed" at the US. They didn't strike. If they have the nukes, they still won't strike. Unless or until it is clear they stand a chance of being covered of their own losses by a larger country. The "axis of evil" was indeed wielding that much power on the trade, monies, and headlines around the nation. Yes, it did have that much "power"; it wouldn't have struck and because it knows it didn't have either the technology for "firing" back at the US; once the US launched its strike, or the ability of "it" ("dirty nuke" country) to survive a counter-strike from the US, and yet emerge as a "power" in the new world "order".
Ergo, the worlds' leaders hope to continue at the "words" level. President Bush did not breach that; he exhibited that he understood the national scale of "linguistic ideologic sets" in this day and age.
Most the countries leaders around the world, do not want war: they want good deals.
So what's new about this, and since the dawning of mankind?