oh yes, i shall respond. BTW, Tommy used the phrase "nukes are immoral" because he used that exact phrase in one of his many LD speeches that he loves hahaha, jp. LD PRIDE! hahah.
i agree, though my man Double A-Ron (inside joke) will disagree with us there haha. Anyway, i think creating nuclear/weapons of mass destruction is pretty much the worst mistake of all mankind. It forces the beholder of weapons to be of at least some intelligence in their usage of them, thats a really big risk though and fortunately it's worked so far.
Furthermore, deterrence with nuclear weapons has become in a way obsolete. The mere possession of even a nuclear weapon that could create a threat regional is enough to start a nuclear war, and then the deterrence has become so ambiguous from country to country that all that is required for a nation to be a threat is to have some sort of nuclear capabilities. It's ineffective, and a countries size or stance in the world doesn't get factored in this at all, third-world countries could have as much nuclear deterrence as us, as far as i am concerned. In short, it upsets the power balance in the world, allowing small nations to be bolstered quickly by this technology. It's just really dangerous
If you think about it, people aren't afraid of our nukes as they are afraid of the United States military (so to speak). Which is exactly the point, nations fear our conventional deterrence far more than our nuclear deterrent. But even so, we have more nukes than the rest of the world, and they are on constant high-alert status circulating in subs and what-not ready to be fired at any time, despite our pledge of second-strike only (if we did pledge this hehe, i assume we do).
Then there's the problem of nuclear storage and leakage and suchl. Whats it called...Nunn-Lugar? Is that it? The one where we give a bunch of money to russia to properly store their nukes. Anyway, Storing nukes is always a risk, along with many others i'm sure other people will touch upon. The US and Russia have agreed verbally (there's no agreement on paper) that we'd get rid of 2/3 of out nukes, but we'd still have more than the rest of the world! US has around 15,000, and Russia around 10,500 (correct me if i'm wrong). Countries like India have like 15 i believe, you see how much we outnumber them still? We need to get rid of ALL of them. Cause ANY nuclear weapon is a threat.
Another thing, it's a waste of money, a LOT of money. Why do we keep proliferating if we have this hellafied ambiguous nuclear detterent all ready? So we nuke Russia 5000 more times than they will? Thats absurd, and i think pretty much all the people in the white house realize this, but it's a hard thing to stop.
What we need, is to go back to total conventional deterrence, like....XENOGEARS! yeah yeah. Huge Mechs that will replace soldiers and stuff. Just an idea haha, anyway i could write a lot more on this subject but i wrote more than i thought i would all ready. Victor, tommy, or someone continue.
__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.
"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell
Last edited by PsychoSnowman on 05-28-2002 at 09:59 PM
|