They Just Might Be
Published on March 26, 2004 By Mr Right0313 In Politics
To All:

Seeing how my first article was well responded to, I thought I might write another that wasn't so politically motivated, rather historically motivated.

The statement here is that not only are Nuclear Weapons not bad, they are in fact beneficial to world peace.

There is a saying attributed to the late Albert Einstein that goes something like this, "I do not know what the weapons of World War III will be fought with, but I do know that World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Now I am not saying there will not be fights and wars among nuclear power nations, that is just way to optimistic, but it will never escalate to the level of a world war.

It is my assertion that as long as we have nuclear weapons, there will not be another World War. It all comes down to one nice acronym, and three little words.

M.A.D.
(Mutually Assured Destruction)

The theory is relatively easy to understand. Nation A has nuclear weapons that can reach the major cities of Nation B. Nation B has nuclear weapons that can reach the major cities of Nation A. Tension increases over the two nations over any topic you may choose, the outcome will be the same. Fighting may break out, but nothing serious. Each nation knows the other could destroy it's capital with the push of the button, so it holds back. Nation B also chooses to hold back because it knows Nation A could destroy it's capital. Both realize an all out war is impossible to win, so both choose not to fight it. They sit back down at the table of diplomacy.

No country will seriously go to war with another nuclear armed nation because they know they can be destroyed in minutes, and no nation will launch their missles against another nuclear armed nation because they know they other nation will respond in kind. This is a no win situation for either nation, so both innevitably avoid it.

Now I am not saying we start passing out nuclear weapons to every third world nation and dictator, from from it. But I am saying it is not harmful for the major world powers to own them.

Need proof?

The Cold War lasted for some forty odd years right? It never became hot because both sides knew it couldn't win.

Pakistan and India are the two most likely to go at it. But both have begun to talk again as they slowly realize the danger of their situation.

Before the invention and spread of nuclear weapons we had hundreds of years of deadly wars (including but not limited to the two world wars). Ever since? Nothing comparable.

Lets hope to God I'm correct, because if I'm not, then Lord have mercy.

Yours Truly,

Mr. Right

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Mar 29, 2004
Let us say assume that both have valid claims on the land, and that therefore history is rather inconsequential. Then what shall we do? Neither is going to give up the land and leave, of course not. So what is the answer?


It's not really an assumption. They do both have valid claims on the land--they both live there. It's not a matter of asking either side to leave (which is what happened in 48--Israel was established and Palestinians fled (or were driven by radio propoganda and massacres such as Deir Yassin) to refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza. Both Palestinians and Israelis are on the land--they both plan to stay. No one is asking Israel to leave Israel proper--simply to get out of the Occupied Territories--land that the international community has repeatedly said Israel doesn't belong in--the first step to resolving the conflict is to get Israel to stop its expansionist pattern.

However, there are many nations partitioned out of land younger than Israel. Why is there such concentrated anger towards Israel?


Because the Palestine Mandate wasn't a successful partition. The original partition plan included a UN mandate over Jerusalem--which never happened. The war started and the partition plans fell to the wayside--Israel actually enlarged it's territory. Israel claims that since the Palestinians refused to accept the partition and the surrounding states declared war, they were within their rights to conquer land. The refusal to accept the partition in no way gave Israel this right. In other words, the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 could not take away the rights of the Palestinians nor enlarge the rights of Israel. The UN confirmed this when they reaffirmed resolutions 181 and 194 (which provided rights for Palestinians) when Israel joined the UN.

Also, a lot of partitions didn't work--look at the partitioning of Ireland and Cyprus.

Who's right? Who's wrong? I agree not so simple an answer.


I think the answer is very simple--NEITHER. This isn't a right v. wrong situation. You have two opposing peoples with legitimate claims and concerns. Both are valid. Both need to be heard. You are right--if we are seeking a victor in this conflict, the region is doomed. There can be no victor if there is to be peace.

But as I have said before, my optimism isn't for optimism's sake, and I don't believe the Middle East is doomed--it may just take a while.
2 Pages1 2