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: combjelly who wrote (568110)	5/27/2010 4:46:42 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578271

We have been in more wars since we got The Bomb Perhaps, but all those wars added together are smaller than the wars from before we got the bomb. And even if they where not (and that is VERY far from being true), it wouldn't show much. Its not like the bomb is the only thing that has changed. The issue is the comparison of the wars we were in (and esp. just the ones we did not choose to start, since our deterrence is irrelevant if we are starting the war), compared to the wars that we would have been in had we not had the bomb. Of course that requires a lot of speculation to even get a vague answer (and there is no way to get a better than vague answer). And even that simplifies things a bit. You can have a deterrence factor but still get in to a war that's not of your own choosing. That would show that in the particular case the deterrence was not great enough to be effective, but it doesn't show it as zero.