Nuclear weapons

Brett Knowlton brettk at unica-usa.com
Mon Dec 13 16:09:45 PST 1999


This thread is a bit weird. Its always been my view that nukes should be eliminated, not spread around.

Granted, there is something to be said for MAD and its deterrent effect. I can see how having a single country with nukes could be dicey. Perhaps having opposing nuclear superpowers really has saved lives which would otherwise have been lost in conventional battles. And it is certainly rational for a country to try to acquire nukes if its rival has them.

Still, something can always go wrong, and the odds of somebody, somewhere using nukes again increases with each new country that develops these weapons.

Brett

At 03:03 PM 12/13/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>
>>Charles: Good thing the Soviets got the bomb when the most the U.S.
>>with its history of genocide against Indigenous peoples, slavery
>>against Africans, Jim Crow, dropping the bomb on the Japanese had
>>it. I trust Stalin more than Harry Truman .
>>
>>CB
>
>How many people would Stalin have to have killed before you would
>trust him *less* than Harry Truman? I mean, if 20 million plus
>doesn't do it, what number would?
>
>
>Brad DeLong, who had thought that there would be general agreement
>that a paranoid tyrant like Stalin shouldn't have the bomb...



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list