Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

42261Enough war

Expand Messages
  • bhvwd
    Oct 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Herman, Mutual Assured Destruction ,MAD, has always puzzled me. Many
      think it has worked to reduce conventional war. It is a great risk to
      take, building the bomb. Oppenheimer had serious doubts and Teller
      later rejected the H bomb as too great a risk . It seems new weapons
      are usually used not just flexed in threat. Take the incendary raids on
      japanese cities as LeMays strategic attacks killed more than the
      nuclear strikes. The competative impetus of our genetic make up seems
      to cause man to invent more and more powerful weapons. I think it
      remarkable that we have not used nuclear bombs in better than half a
      century. Some relatively threatened countries have nuclear capability,
      ie, Pakistan and India. I am suprised they have not used their
      abilities. There seems to be something unnamed that restrains us from
      pushing the button. I cannot think it is any philosophical principles
      that have dissuaded further use . It would seem possible that some set
      of nuclear age rules should limit further blasts but who has the power
      of enforcement? I know some strategists do not think of nukes as
      weapons, just devices. Weapons should not destroy their users, only
      the enemy should suffer annihilation. If our world has become too small
      for our devices why have we restrained ourselves. Who or what is
      governing our better angels? Bill
    • Show all 2 messages in this topic