SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Maurice Winn who wrote (171011)9/20/2005 3:44:43 PM
From: neolib  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
The history of nuclear weapons has been that they were very dangerous when only one country had them. Some hundreds of thousands died during that time, but none since. I expect that to remain the case for a very long time.

Regarding the dismal fate of the world in general, you might have tossed population control into your prescription of how to avoid the turmoil to come.

If only our elected officials could figure out which issues need "preemption" the future could be much brighter IMO.

We've beaten to death the issue of Iran & nuclear power. I have always realised they want the bomb. So more to the point, what do you think we should do about it?



To: Maurice Winn who wrote (171011)9/20/2005 7:54:58 PM
From: bentway  Respond to of 281500
 
"The world nearly ended for a lot of people in the region, but maybe they don't count. Pakistan was all ready to nuke India because Islamic Jihad wants to kill Hindus and take Kashmir and rule the world."

You can say the same thing about us SEVERAL TIMES during the cold war. These weapons are a continuing danger no matter WHO has them. The world should work twoard reducing their numbers, including us and the Russians.