Most tacticians know that the end of the nuclear war game where two enemies or opposing sides have many nuclear warheads the outcome can only be what some clever guy called " assured mutual destruction."
Assured mutual destruction is a fancy term for the annihilation of both sides.
Thus, both sides would not fire and there would be peace. However, if two sides could not assure mutual destruction that is they don't have enough nukes to blow up the others country or the world there is a problem. This seems to be the argument of many commentators.
Of course I never pretend to be more of an expert than I am and I am (and I am not) so books are provided above. I don't wish to dissuade persons and get too political, but it should be noted that the country with the most nuclear bombs and the ONLY one to use a nuclear bomb calls itself a responsible country (whatever that means) and actively discourages other countries from acquiring them.
I have no problem with a nuclear free world but shouldn't the UN or some other credible agency be leading that front?
Just food for thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment