Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike
Yeah, I was wondering about that too...Aren't you creating a fallacy argument? You're suggesting that nuclear weapons would be a poor deterrent if they hadn't actually deterred. That makes no sense.
It's like saying "I'm sure everyone would love their eye-glasses if they didn't cause blindness". Well they didn't cause blindness.
|
I'm saying the risk involved isn't justified. To use your analogy, it's as if glasses will sometimes improve your vision, and sometimes they won't, but if a lens falls out, they'll melt your eyes right in your sockets. I'd keep on squinting, given the choice. Likewise, I'd take the risk of conventional wars that are supposedly prevented by the bomb (which wars are these, exactly, and how can we know it was the bomb that prevented them?) over the risk of nuclear annihilation any day.
Quote:
|
Let's use the Cuban Missile Crisis as an example: say the Russians put nukes in Cuba and we had no nukes in Turkey. What would our bargaining chip have been?
|
Why would the Soviets put them in Cuba if we didn't have them in Turkey? Why couldn't we put them in Turkey in response? But anyway, I only mentioned Cuba because it's the closest the superpowers came to war. And again, if it did escalate to a nuclear exchange, the survivors would probably look back and choose to forgo the post-WW2 not so peaceful peace, in exchange for, you know, not slowly dying of radiation sickness.
The risk of this scenario occurring is not justified by the benefits of the bomb.