by EnergyUnlimited » Thu 04 Jan 2007, 09:41:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PolestaR', 'S')ure America could drop the old H-bomb and kill most countries if it wanted, but then it would face it's own annihilation from other similarly equipped countries. So they can't really do that, or they lose. Putting it on the table sounds like the usual sore loser attitude "Yeah if we played the game again I'd beat you this time".
I am gradually coming to belief, that such solution, eg major nuclear powers from East and West cross-nuking each other, will actually be exercised in the future, say within next decade or two.
NPT is falling apart, tensions between major nuclear nations are growing up, nuke posturing is on the increase etc.
As Hiroshima memories are fading away, people begin to be less and less scared of nukes as well.
It looks like, that a kind of consensus between politicians worldwide anticipating necessity of next
big war is beginning to emerge.
This may be similar to situation just before WW I.
Everyone knew, that a war is coming, that nothing can be done to prevent it, and on the end it actually came.
It may well be irrelevant, that all involved will prove to be losers in such a war. They may well decide to start nuclear war, because of
impossibility of stabilizing world or dividing it into "areas of influence" in any imaginable fashion, which would be acceptable to nuclear states in dispute.
American way of life is not negotiable + Russian influence on most of Europe and big parts of Asia is not negotiable + China economic growth is not negotiable...= no solution, other than a war
Now we may begin to negotiate, what we are
not going to nuke, before the war starts (I hope that nuclear power plants will be included on that list...).