—Is the best way to stop a war to have one dominant country (say, perhaps, the United States)? Or should everyone be equal in power, so no one can possibly take advantage of anyone else?
—Is the best way to stop a nuclear war to have only one dominant country with nuclear weapons (say, for the sake of argument, the United States)? Or for every country to have nuclear weapons so no one can safely attack anyone else?
Something tells me you’re a lot less in favor of the war of all against all when “they” can shoot back.
-
marchingbacktoreasons likes this
-
azspot likes this
-
polyscinerd likes this
-
sitasays likes this
-
bapeonion likes this
-
sirwillhelm reblogged this from politicalprof
-
wiltonchambers said:
Not to disagree, but wasn’t point 2 the basis for our entire cold war foreign policy - Mutual Assured Destruction?
-
theriverwanders reblogged this from politicalprof
-
donnainthedesert likes this
-
indianajosh likes this
-
contradictme likes this
-
pol102 reblogged this from politicalprof and added:
From politicalprof:...NRA’s spokesman...quick crash...
-
pol102 likes this
-
resurrecthobbes reblogged this from politicalprof
-
resurrecthobbes likes this
-
qbits likes this
-
steeperthandeep likes this
-
littleblackkittycat likes this
-
stringof reblogged this from politicalprof
-
stringof likes this
-
azathfeld likes this
-
god--made--man reblogged this from politicalprof
-
god--made--man likes this
-
yesjaysaidthat likes this
-
redcloud likes this
-
smdxn likes this
-
listswithonlyoneitem reblogged this from politicalprof
-
poetryismyweapon likes this
-
eloquentwhimsy likes this
-
alls-well-with-the-world reblogged this from politicalprof
-
maeganramirez reblogged this from politicalprof
-
maeganramirez likes this
-
politicalprof posted this
