M.A.D. About NukesLearn Politics on mps-politics.com. M.A.D. About Nukes article will help answer your questions on Politics.We at mps-politics.com specialize in Politics. Politics at mps-politics.com provides the most up to date news and articles. If you have questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
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.
The decline is remarkable given it's an election year and his renewed call for passage of the controversial Buffett Rule, a new tax on millionaires. Fewer than 37.8 million Americans tuned into the prime-time address, which was broadcast on 14 networks, according to Nielsen, which provides detailed analysis of consumer viewing behavior and demographics. That's down 13 percent from his State of the Union address a year earlier. About 26.6 million households, or fewer than 1 in 4, watched Obama talk about the state of the nation. So how do Obama's State of the Union ratings stack up against former President George W. Bush's? Former President Bill Clinton's? Read more ... (Photo: President Barack Obama delivers his 2012 State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress on Jan. 24, 2012. Credit: Getty Images News) 2012 State of the Union Ratings are Lowest of Obama's First Term originally appeared on About.com US Politics on Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 21:03:10. Article Index: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
More Articles:1. The Last Eclipse Strange things never cease to happen. These things themselves make the world go round. Consider this: Many years ago, a solar eclipse happened in one primitive part of the earth. You know what it means—day changed to night. And the ignorant villagers, who didn't know what had just happened, thought that the world has come to an end. See farmers racing down to their village huts! Behold mothers frantically searching for their weeping babies in the village playground! Watch birds and domesti… 2. A Need to Review Abortion Laws In Belgium By Rickcord. N Ngambi INTRODUCTIONThe aim of writing this article is to encourage the long standing pro-life battle against abortion and protecting the rights of unborn babies to experience life on earth as nature permit it to be. Thousands of unborn babies are being aborted in Belgium by wicked mothers just by convincing the physician with any of those reason covered by the laws of which a woman can abort without facing any criminal charges. These laws have now given women the power and the licence to kill. Belgiu… 3. How Bill Cosby Got iy Wrong Bill Cosby got it wrong. His many speeches regarding the plight of poor blacks in this country and their lack of personal responsibility were not only off the mark, but completely irresponsible. Cosby failed to take into account many mitigating factors, in what became his regular rants on poor blacks in this country. For example, the last of the civil rights laws was passed in 1965, so it's been forty years since the physical signs of government sanctioned racism have been in place. Please expla… 4. Environmentalists Say GM Seeds are Bad News By Lance Winslow Environmentalists say GM Seeds are bad for the environment, dangerous to the security of the world’s food supply and will cause millions to starve. Yet when one really looks at the debate none of those statements can be made in absolute truth. Why is it bad for the environment? GM crops were said to be bad by some environmentalists, but Monsanto has figured out a way to terminate the seeds, this terminates them from spreading to other strains of DNA, RNA of natural or wild crops. Thus helps th… |
||||
The numbers are in, and they're not pretty: President Barack Obama's