0bs3n3
Member
I've been reading lately about how Kevin Rudd may embark on another jaunt this year in an attempt to entrench himself as a man of action on the international stage. Instead of climate change, this time it would be nuclear disarmament. I have always thought that 'Mutually Assured Destruction' ensures the viability of another world war to be dearth. Does it stand that a reduction or complete removal of nuclear arms would serve to prod a whole host of issues virtually unresolved since the end of WWII, and especially the end of the Cold War? Would large-scale war be more 'acceptable' without the threat of nuclear weapons? John Keegan writes that because of the widespread adoption of televisions, that "it is scarcely possible anywhere in the world today to raise a body of reasoned support for the opinion that war is a justifiable activity" - Western enthusiasm tends to dissipate once visual evidence of the carnage is presented.
Now there is a range of reasons why this may not be the case. For one, nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented, so a state could potentially re-arm in the midst of a larger war.
What do you think?
Now there is a range of reasons why this may not be the case. For one, nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented, so a state could potentially re-arm in the midst of a larger war.
What do you think?
