The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Should we fill the world with deadly nuclear weapons that are expensive and have the power to obliterate the human race?
I would say yes. A nuclear deterent is nessecery in order to sustain nuclear peace. In this day and age the temptation for a rougue country to develop nuclear weapons is great. If Iraq alone had nuclear weapons for example then their hold over countries would be immense with the threat of nuclear attack potent in the extreme. The nuclear detterent however makes the cost too great for such action and consequently the world is a safer place.
The fear of devestaion caused by nuclear weapons may quite possibly have deterred war in the Cold war and indeed distilled tensions that could have easily have esculated into war with countries such as China. A world armed with nuclear weapons is ultimatly safer for the simple fact that it would be mad to fire nuclear missiles knowing you condemmed your destruction. This indeed has been termed MAD, or mutual assured destruction.
this does raise a question however in that what happens if there was to be someone truly mad. by developing nuclear arms throughout the world we may encourage aggresers and give them the opportunity to truly destroy the world. i say that this is a risk that we must take. To disarm would only play into the hands of dictators such as saddam Hussein. Nuclear weapons must be contained to avoid and deter nuclear and convential war. Two aggressers faced with definite destruction may see reason where as two aggressors each determined of victory may start war. The violence of the nuclear threat is in my opinion so horrific that that in some way shows a true light to war and what it is really about: killing.
There can however be no objective answer to the question of wether nations will be detered by the nuclear threat. There is also the issue of the arms race that faced the USSR and the US. Such a bulid up of nuclear weapons can create tension and anxiety with the affect of damaging relations. In recent years however with increasingly productive communication between the G8 such tension has not existed. Now however with George Bush on the seen with his new Son of star Wars idea there have been the complaints of yet another arms race. I think however that the talks between Putin and Bush show that today we can communicate and overcome the troubles of international relations previously seen. I therefore agree with Bush's policy as itt will mean a reduction in nuclear weapons and in the long run deffence may be the only way to cut the need for nuclear weapons.
So lets not cut nuclear weapons; lets keep them.
I would say yes. A nuclear deterent is nessecery in order to sustain nuclear peace. In this day and age the temptation for a rougue country to develop nuclear weapons is great. If Iraq alone had nuclear weapons for example then their hold over countries would be immense with the threat of nuclear attack potent in the extreme. The nuclear detterent however makes the cost too great for such action and consequently the world is a safer place.
The fear of devestaion caused by nuclear weapons may quite possibly have deterred war in the Cold war and indeed distilled tensions that could have easily have esculated into war with countries such as China. A world armed with nuclear weapons is ultimatly safer for the simple fact that it would be mad to fire nuclear missiles knowing you condemmed your destruction. This indeed has been termed MAD, or mutual assured destruction.
this does raise a question however in that what happens if there was to be someone truly mad. by developing nuclear arms throughout the world we may encourage aggresers and give them the opportunity to truly destroy the world. i say that this is a risk that we must take. To disarm would only play into the hands of dictators such as saddam Hussein. Nuclear weapons must be contained to avoid and deter nuclear and convential war. Two aggressers faced with definite destruction may see reason where as two aggressors each determined of victory may start war. The violence of the nuclear threat is in my opinion so horrific that that in some way shows a true light to war and what it is really about: killing.
There can however be no objective answer to the question of wether nations will be detered by the nuclear threat. There is also the issue of the arms race that faced the USSR and the US. Such a bulid up of nuclear weapons can create tension and anxiety with the affect of damaging relations. In recent years however with increasingly productive communication between the G8 such tension has not existed. Now however with George Bush on the seen with his new Son of star Wars idea there have been the complaints of yet another arms race. I think however that the talks between Putin and Bush show that today we can communicate and overcome the troubles of international relations previously seen. I therefore agree with Bush's policy as itt will mean a reduction in nuclear weapons and in the long run deffence may be the only way to cut the need for nuclear weapons.
So lets not cut nuclear weapons; lets keep them.
Lol i just posted a message on the very same topic in the greatest inventions post :D
Go there and read my view :)
Go there and read my view :)
Should we fill the world with deadly nuclear weapons that are expensive and have the power to obliterate the human race?
I would say yes. A nuclear deterent is nessecery in order to sustain nuclear peace. In this day and age the temptation for a rougue country to develop nuclear weapons is great. If Iraq alone had nuclear weapons for example then their hold over countries would be immense with the threat of nuclear attack potent in the extreme. The nuclear detterent however makes the cost too great for such action and consequently the world is a safer place.
The fear of devestaion caused by nuclear weapons may quite possibly have deterred war in the Cold war and indeed distilled tensions that could have easily have esculated into war with countries such as China. A world armed with nuclear weapons is ultimatly safer for the simple fact that it would be mad to fire nuclear missiles knowing you condemmed your destruction. This indeed has been termed MAD, or mutual assured destruction.
this does raise a question however in that what happens if there was to be someone truly mad. by developing nuclear arms throughout the world we may encourage aggresers and give them the opportunity to truly destroy the world. i say that this is a risk that we must take. To disarm would only play into the hands of dictators such as saddam Hussein. Nuclear weapons must be contained to avoid and deter nuclear and convential war. Two aggressers faced with definite destruction may see reason where as two aggressors each determined of victory may start war. The violence of the nuclear threat is in my opinion so horrific that that in some way shows a true light to war and what it is really about: killing.
There can however be no objective answer to the question of wether nations will be detered by the nuclear threat. There is also the issue of the arms race that faced the USSR and the US. Such a bulid up of nuclear weapons can create tension and anxiety with the affect of damaging relations. In recent years however with increasingly productive communication between the G8 such tension has not existed. Now however with George Bush on the seen with his new Son of star Wars idea there have been the complaints of yet another arms race. I think however that the talks between Putin and Bush show that today we can communicate and overcome the troubles of international relations previously seen. I therefore agree with Bush's policy as itt will mean a reduction in nuclear weapons and in the long run deffence may be the only way to cut the need for nuclear weapons.
So lets not cut nuclear weapons; lets keep them.
I would say yes. A nuclear deterent is nessecery in order to sustain nuclear peace. In this day and age the temptation for a rougue country to develop nuclear weapons is great. If Iraq alone had nuclear weapons for example then their hold over countries would be immense with the threat of nuclear attack potent in the extreme. The nuclear detterent however makes the cost too great for such action and consequently the world is a safer place.
The fear of devestaion caused by nuclear weapons may quite possibly have deterred war in the Cold war and indeed distilled tensions that could have easily have esculated into war with countries such as China. A world armed with nuclear weapons is ultimatly safer for the simple fact that it would be mad to fire nuclear missiles knowing you condemmed your destruction. This indeed has been termed MAD, or mutual assured destruction.
this does raise a question however in that what happens if there was to be someone truly mad. by developing nuclear arms throughout the world we may encourage aggresers and give them the opportunity to truly destroy the world. i say that this is a risk that we must take. To disarm would only play into the hands of dictators such as saddam Hussein. Nuclear weapons must be contained to avoid and deter nuclear and convential war. Two aggressers faced with definite destruction may see reason where as two aggressors each determined of victory may start war. The violence of the nuclear threat is in my opinion so horrific that that in some way shows a true light to war and what it is really about: killing.
There can however be no objective answer to the question of wether nations will be detered by the nuclear threat. There is also the issue of the arms race that faced the USSR and the US. Such a bulid up of nuclear weapons can create tension and anxiety with the affect of damaging relations. In recent years however with increasingly productive communication between the G8 such tension has not existed. Now however with George Bush on the seen with his new Son of star Wars idea there have been the complaints of yet another arms race. I think however that the talks between Putin and Bush show that today we can communicate and overcome the troubles of international relations previously seen. I therefore agree with Bush's policy as itt will mean a reduction in nuclear weapons and in the long run deffence may be the only way to cut the need for nuclear weapons.
So lets not cut nuclear weapons; lets keep them.