Does this make sense now?
We will then (i.e. in our nuclear near future) will try to resolve conflicts based on cooperation, respect, and equality, even if we don't really like who we are talking with.
With all due respect......ROTFLOL.
How in the world could you possibly imagine that happening in the forseeable future. Thousands of years of "humanity" says that's not going to happen on anywhere near a global scale. I'd challenge you to find that in a residential neighborhood.
When country X runs out of fresh water and country Y to the north has water; country X will do whatever it needs to get that water.
I could believe that with some large scale destruction of humanity that substantially exceeds what happened in WWII [see below] then, maybe, the world will come to a conclusion that we should play nice with each other.
World War II killed more people, involved more nations, and cost more money than any other war in history. Altogether, 70 million people served in the armed forces during the war and 17 million combatants died. Civilian deaths were ever greater. At least 19 million Soviet civilians, 10 million Chinese, and 6 million European Jews lost their lives during the war.
World War II was truly a global war. Some 70 nations took part in the conflict, and fighting took place on the continents of Africa, Asia, and Europe, as well as on the high seas. Entire societies participated, as soldiers, war workers, or victims of occupation and mass murder.
digitalhistory.uh.edu
I read through some recent posts on whether or not to obliterate Muslim holy places, which are generally in populated areas, in retaliation for a WMD attack on the US. Humanity hasn't progressed much beyond the middle ages, we just have a greater capability of destruction.
jttmab |
