Quote:
Originally Posted by Bewolf
The problem in this all is, that detterence worked for by now only 60 years. That is not a lot of time, really, but within this timeframe so far ppl kept their cool.
However, this concept only has to fail "once" and the sh*t hits the fan. It's like ppl actually "like" to raise their children under the threat of nuclear weapons, full of faith that their existence will prevent their use, which, by Murphys law, is highly unlikely. Literally the fate of the world....That's a whole lot trust in something as irrational an unpredictable as human nature, no matter what country from.
|
The situation had been out of control at least once, during Cuba. Back then, the crisis was not defused by competent management. We simply were LUCKY.
However, most of the time it worked the way you outlined because actors in the nuclear arena were cool-blooded calculators with at least some sanity and reason left. This safety function you can forget in case of religious nutheads living by fantasies of world dominance and/or just devine (=manmade) revenge that was sought for and carried out by their sick minds.
Or as Kidman puts it so laconic and precise in this film called "Project Peacemaker":
I'm not worried about those trying to get many nuclear weapons. I'm worried about the guy who only wants one.
Proliferation is the one great danger in a world with knowledge on nuclear weapons. It's the one uncalculatable risk we cannot afford, and the one bad thing that really does not let me find sleep. Preventing proliferation is what seems to justify all and every means necessary to acchieve that mission objective. Enforcing non-proliferation is not negotiable -
it is an imperative must.