(March 23, 2018 at 4:33 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: Honestly, I think the presence of nuclear weapons stabilized the world in the 20th century because it made all-out war between the US-led West and the USSR-led East obsolete. Even Khrushchev understood this. Without nukes, WWIII would have been inevitable IMO.
The problem today is with 3rd-world countries having access to them.
I don't have a time machine but if I did and could destroy the invention, I would.
The "stabilization" you are CORRECT about, doesn't make it desirable or forever. It still takes humans to understand "mutual destruction'. It isn't just 3rd world countries at this point.
I don't trust 45, I don't trust Putin, I don't trust Un, I don't trust the Imams of Iran, I don't trust Bibi.
3rd world or not, friend or foe, it still depends on enough humans WORLDWIDE to always make the implications the priority. Again, nobody wins if everybody dies. <--- THAT is what "mutual destruction" means.
Just like guns, it isn't the object or the technology, but HOW humans view those things. Once you accept it can kill you, not just your enemy, your perspective becomes far more constructive.
