Would it be better for two sides to obliterate each other? or would it be better for one side to back off and allow the other side to inherit the Earh for the increased survival of the whole?
2007-06-06 14:28:59 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The idea was that neither side would attack. It was surely a crazy idea but it worked. However the margin of error was razor thin and we came pretty close to going at it a couple of times. It's not something I'd recommend again.
2007-06-06 14:36:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Mutually Assured Destruction is an excellent deterrent - it worked extremely well throughout the cold war era.
I'm not so sure, however, if it would work with an adversary that is hell bent on becoming a martyr and collecting his 72 virgins. Cooler heads must prevail - and I don't think that applies to Islamic radicals.
Scientists tell us that empathy and compassion is what makes us human - the terrorists lack both, so it is nonsensical to believe we should back off for the survival of the whole.
2007-06-06 14:42:50 · answer #2 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It worked for 40 years.
2007-06-06 14:56:17 · answer #3 · answered by spookytooth 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The chilly war is over. Russia isn't pointing ICBMs at us anymore. we at the instant are not nervous approximately Russians invading anymore. maximum countries with nuclear weapons at the instant are not keen to apply them against everybody. entire international catastrophic destruction is in simple terms too intense of a cost to pay, surprisingly whilst it could probable deliver approximately the top of the human race.
2016-12-12 13:43:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it means neither side would gain anything. it's a good policy,because it worked.
as for the other poster talking about certain peoples compassion,it is what drives some of them. for further explanation,e-mail is open
2007-06-06 14:50:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
yep; its clear from the examples of India/Pakistan and N Korea/S. Korea that nukes simply prevent aggressive wars. I think nukes are great.
2007-06-06 14:33:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
well...
it's a "good deterrent" until someone actually uses a nuke...
then EVERYONE will go... "that was the stupidest idea ever"...
all five people that are left... that is...
2007-06-06 14:46:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋