Evidence God Exists

[Frank]

I want to toss this out there - I heard an interesting hypothesis several months ago. While there's certainly been plenty of small wars (conflicts really) since the advent of nuclear weapon technology, there's been far less killing than traditionally seen throughout history since the development of advanced nuclear weapon technology. Apparently the idea of mutually assured destruction has provided an excellent deterrent against large scale military conflict (the type where millions are killed, not just a few thousand or even tens of thousands). Just an observation (not really advocating any particular approach, but something I suppose we need to make a mental note of as we're formulating what our own positions should be).

Eye. Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.)
Full on war like the second and first world wars are no longer possible. Not unless you wish to plunge this planet into another dark age. One that will send us all back to the cave age. The question is. How many huge wars would have taken place if nukes wern't an issue? Garanteed defeat on both sides have prevented major, even minor wars from taking place.

I think we have benefited from M.A.D. because it keeps us from going into major wars. It has been more peaceful now than it ever has been.

1st and 2nd world wars were faught with guns, tanks, aircrafts and bombs. 3rd world war to be faught with nuclear weapons. 4th world war will be faught with sticks and stones.

Indeed, this is statistically true. So when I see well intended people protesting nuclear weapons (mostly our own possession of them), who I understand simply desire a more peaceful world, I wonder if they really researched and thought about what they're proposing? Obviously the whole thing could turn around (assuming a bunch of religious fanatics get a hold of a nuclear warhead), a situation we face today with the prospect of Iran possibly building nukes. So the question will become whether enforcing a tightly regulated nuclear regime is worth war?

From strictly a numbers perspective, perhaps. Whatever we might say about fundamental fairness (e.g. Israel has nukes, why not Iran) - the Iranians are governed by insane religious fanatics (who feel it their duty to help bring about the end of the world).

I think at this point we've reached a point in this whole mess where Israel feels they made enough concessions in the past, and they've extended the olive branch only to have it rejected numerous times. So I think they're stuck on a course of expanding settlements (in places like East Jerusalem), and they will ultimately attack Iran in the absence of U.S. action. The question isn't whose problem it is (it's everyones problem, because Iran already has missiles that can reach Europe). The question is who can accomplish a strike more effectively (and of course the answer is the United States; and make no mistake, despite Israel's storied military, we have far greater capacity and reach).

We've been trying to play out the whole insurrection thing in Iran, but it's not gonna happen. The government there is in tact & isn't going anywhere anytime soon. For numerous reasons, a nuclear Iran is just not something we can let happen. I expect even President Obama will ultimately find he has no other alternative (but the prospects aren't good; we would really have to bomb the hell of Iran, not only their nuclear facilities, but we would have to diminish her military capacity to near nothingness in order to mitigate the threat to the region and ensure the stability of global oil supplies).

It's a catch 22. Sure, M.A.D. does prevent large scale conflicts (the sort where millions are slaughtered); and obviously that's a good thing. However, short-term it will require at least one, and potentially several smaller conflicts. In sum M.A.D. saves millions of lives, but it's still far from perfect.