Before the nuclear/atomic weapons (or weapons that could destroy the earth) it was always about who got the bigger gun. or 'that ain't a knife ... THIS is a knife'. It was always that mentality. And whoever had the bigger one would always win ... But since the nuclear came in the scene, you don't have that anymore. Is it the epitome or the height of military might? You can't be like, I'll bomb you cause you'll kill yourself too. So in that way, do you consider the nuclear weapon to be a blessing in disguise, in that while posing a threat of total annihilation, it is that SAME threat that is stopping anyone from using it...
It's the mutually assured destruction argument that one. Which is a little flawed. Namely if a non-government based organisation (terrorist, paramilitary etc) got a hold of nuclear weaponry. They would have nothing to lose from any ensuing violence. Another flaw is that this was largely the same argument that led up to WW1, that because of the massive alliances between countries. No one would attack anyone else because of the attacks on the attacking country that would follow.
Nuclear weapons are rather obsolete when you consider the weapons that have been developed over the past 50 years, starting with the Russians. I am taking about scalar weaponry, directed-energy/microwave weapons, laser weapons, particle beams, antimatter weapons, etc. These weapons have the potential to be just as deadly, if not more so, than nuclear weapons... yet you never hear about them. They have the potential using something like HAARP to create a nuclear-like explosion over any area in the world they want, but without the radiological fallout that comes with nuclear weapons. So I am less concerned about nuclear weapons than I am the weapons we less frequently hear about, which will no doubt be used in a big way in the future. A lot has been done to demonize anything nuclear as a way of preventing countries from having a clean and efficient energy source.
What do you think former Secretary of Defense Cohen was referring to here: ????? I wonder who the "terrorists" might be.
Read the patent for HAARP. Do you think the Secretary of Defense under Clinton said that just for the fun of it?
I wonder what China's fiddling with the weather for the olympics is doing to global weather patterns more than I worry about my neighbors light bulbs or SUV or Iran's development of nuclear sources for electricity. http://travel.latimes.com/articles/la-trw-rain31jan31
Don't worry about what China's doing to alter the weather. The Chinese are using dated means of altering the weather, compared to the HAARP technology possessed by the US and other countries in the West.
Czech people started to panic due plans for building radar by legal American terrorists: http://pl.youtube.com/watch?v=cNh2KhAgs5g&feature=related
What good is M.A.D. if I have the technology to shoot the enemy's nukes down? The Nuke didn't "end" the tension of the Cold War, but the Strategic Defense Initiative did a pretty good job, should check it out sometime.
Nuclear power is definately a detriment. It's the power of the sun. Scientist reason that , in this universe full of rouge asteroids , black holes , and possible gamma bursts , our biggest threat is nuclear holocaust. They reason that it would take no more than 20 nuclear explosions equivelant to Heroshima to effectively end mankind. The lucky ones would , of course , be the ones who were instantly incinerated.
The post-nuclear world from SF or Fallout II game is firing up my fantasy... Really interesting topic for SF writers.
Since there have been many wars since the first atomic bombs were dropped, I would have to say, nuclear weapons have changed very little. Countries that do not have nuclear weapons still goto war with each other, and countries that do have them, now fight proxy wars.
