ArticlesReader.com Menu

Newest Articles
Most Viewed Articles
ArticlesReader.com RSS
Submit Article
Login
Signup

Search the articles

Articles Main Categories

Advice
Animals
Automobiles
Business
Career
Communications
Computer Programming
Computers
Entertainment
Environment
Family
Fashion
Finance
Food
Health & Medical
Home & Garden
Humor
Internet Business
Internet Marketing
Legal
Leisure & Recreation
Marketing
Other
Politics
Reference & Education
Religion
Self Improvement
Sports
Technology & Science
Travel
Writing

Subscribe

Receive alert message from us when new articles submitted to our site for free.

Syndicate

Related Products

Home::Politics

M.A.D. About Nukes

Author : Ed Howes

Every living person and every one to come has the right to have and use any weapon that may be used against them. The only way to prevent pre emptive strikes is for opponents to agree to a simultaneous strike, which seldom happens. Who doubts that the defense policy of Mutually Assured Destruction prevented war between the Soviet Union/Russia and the U.S. for 50 years? Who would argue that it has not prevented a recent war between India and Pakistan?

These nuclear powers have made it so obvious that nukes make friends of adversaries; Iraq, Iran and North Korea had/have every intention of acquiring them. I'm all for it. The U.S. needs all the friends it can get, for the foreseeable future. Pakistan and Russia can definitely use the income from nuclear trade. In fact, Russia and Pakistan should dominate this market unless the U.S. decides to compete for the business. Recent talk about mini nukes tells me the U.S. Government intends to compete in the new rush to proliferate nukes. These nuclear powers all have the technology to make relatively cheap and portable nuclear devices, which are so much more practical and democratic for the people, than guided missiles. Three of these powers possess these portable nukes and all three are probably already selling them to customers who cannot make their own, or refuse to go to the trouble and expense.

Sure, nuclear contaminated conventional weapons, called dirty bombs, will have a powerful psychological effect on their victims and possible victims. Yet, a small thermonuclear device that can destroy from one quarter to all of a city would be so much better. Wouldn't you agree? I'm not talking absurdity. I'm talking reality. It is political leadership that is absurd in trying to regulate who in the world may own what weapons. "We get the good ones; you can have the rest, like Israel and Palestine."

Does it matter if I am destroyed by a nuclear weapon planted by a terrorist or a missile from some nation state? In fact, I do prefer that it be a small nuke affecting fewer of my neighbors. Where can I buy that insurance, from Homeland Security? I don't think so. How long would Saddam have held power in Iraq if an ex patriot or other enemy could have planted a small nuclear device near a Baghdad palace he frequented? How long would Castro, Stalin, Mao or Idi Amin have lasted?

I know the typical objection to allowing just anybody to have weapons of mass destruction, but what can we do when it cannot be prevented? Certainly we will have the equivalent of a global wild west, when many adults were armed twenty four hours per day and the lawless killed one another, as best they could. That doesn't happen so much as it once did, but the lawless folks of those days had very short careers. Now they find a way to become heads of states for 30 and 40 years, in some cases. This is because no one with superior force objects to their rule in any meaningful way, until very recently.

If South Africa gave up its nuclear development program, it was not just to appease the non proliferation dreamers. It was to save money in the absence of a strong external threat. Other would-be nuclear powers are not that fortunate. They have or imagine serious threats to sovereignty and rightfully so in either case. Why don't we make friends of Iran and North Korea, before they get their nukes?

Let the U.S. send a new message. America will treat you right, even if you have no nukes and you are decidedly more evil than we are. But then, we hate those more evil than us, unless they have nukes already. It is our duty to punish those we can get away with punishing. Ask the U.S. President.

It is mostly those who pose no threat to others that remain un-threatened by others. The United States poses a threat to the entire world and the entire world has become a threat to the United States. �All the king's horses and all the king's men� cannot prevent future attacks, no matter how much credit they spend. Only when the people of the world are armed with the weapons of mass destruction that could be readily used against them, will there be any serious discussion of disarmament on a global scale. Until then, every have-not has a duty to become a have, in order to end the dominance and submission games the dominants so love to play. Long live Mutually Assured Destruction! All for nukes and nukes for all! At least until love becomes globally preferred to fear as a means of social control.

About the Author

Freelance writer published on many websites and in newspapers.
edhowes@hotmail.com
justanotherview.com

Spam emails More free articles

More related feeds

MAD About Nukes
Every experience mortal and every digit to embellish has the correct to hit and ingest whatever instrument that haw be utilised against them. The exclusive artefact to preclude pre emptive strikes is for opponents to concord to a ...

Danger Room Debrief: Lead by Example on Nukes, Mr. President-Elect ...
The precarious nuclear balance through MAD has kept us safe. Its a circular proxy of logic that no one is willing to bridge. This idea droll at best. Lets take a step forward in the fire by giving up our nukes first. ...

Green Isn't Green: Voice of Cramerica: Mad Money - Voice of ...
[SGR Loading... () ] could be in that list, because of its nuclear power operation -- because even though nukes aren't everyone's idea of green, they're a lot cleaner than burning fossil fuels. ...

A more logical approach to Iran
It is worth noting that president-elect Barack Obama and his running mate are ardently pro-Israel and have pledged to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons - although the only evidence they seem to have of this mad dash for nukes ...

Commentary » Blog Archive » If Only It Were So
“If your fiction of an Iranian threat driven by mad jihadists crumbles, you will have nothing.” So it’s a fiction…other than Iranian assertions that they are not pursuing nukes, upon what do you base that claim? ...

As in the days of Noah: 'Iran will have nukes within two years'
'Iran will have nukes within two years'. "With Iran less than two years away from acquiring nuclear capability, a combined strategy of political isolation, increased economic sanctions and the threat of military action as a last resort ...

‘Mad Men’ finale recap: Nuke threat forces characters to scrub ...
Spoiler alert: If you haven’t yet watched the season finale of “Mad Men,” episode 13, “Meditations in an Emergency,” you may want to skip this column.

Too Soon? No Nukes for Japanese Fallout 3 - 61 Frames Per Second
Bob Mackey is a grad student, writer, and cyborg, who uses the powerful girl-repelling nanomachines mad science grafted onto his body to allocate time towards interests of the nerd persuasion. He believes that complaining about things ...

Defense Chief: Give Us New Nukes, or Else | Danger Room from Wired.com
Posted by: M.A.D | Oct 28, 2008 11:26:55 AM. Or we can just decommision the nukes we have as they get too old. Why replace them at all? Let them slowly fade out and work on getting everyone else to do the same. Leading by example, folks ...

Carpooling Up To Lake Taupo Challenge Next Weekend? - Wellington ...
How mad would I be to sign up for the Huka MTB Challenge now? Laugh Out Loud. Back to top ... As mad as anyone doing 2 laps of Taupo. Back to top ... As mad as anyone doing 2 laps of Taupo. that's pretty mad! Ride, riders? Back to top ...

M.A.D. About Nukes

Related articles