Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (271895)	2/4/2006 8:55:00 AM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1571828

I just don't think that threats and force are the way to convince other nations not to build nuclear weapons. The countries that HAVE abandoned their programs didn't do so because of threats and force, but because of sanctions and diplomatic pressure over time, or just good sense. Some of the former Soviet republics abandoned their nukes simply by thinking that if they didn't have them, they wouldn't be a target of them. Live by the sword, die by the sword. nrdc.org As you can see from this chart, there was a time when there were over 60,000 nuclear weapons on the planet, held mostly by us and the Soviet Union. That giant overkill has been reduced to more than 20,000 nuclear weapons, most still held by us and Russia. This was accomplished by men of good will from BOTH countries coming together to accomplish the reduction. This has been so far back-burnered by the Bushies, you never even hear about it. The number of weapons held by the Russians and us are STILL at least three times the amount we really need for deterence, massive overkill.