Thread: Does Communism still have a role to play, or is it dead?

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Nukes are very expensive and dangerous for the owner. The main reason to join the nuclear club is to protect oneself from the intrusion of a superpower. So the aggressive politics of USA (and NATO) is the main reason of the nukes' spread over the world nowadays. BTW you can surely remove North Korea from the "roadmap", cause it is already in club. Actually, USA provides help to North Korea each year. So, either a typical NATO high-level strategic planner have a problem with strategic planning or he takes NATO aggressiveness as something uncontrolled and tries only to reduce the consequences (mainly unsuccessfully).

No?

More than 60 years have passed since the first and last actual use of nuclear weapons. The U.S. used it against their enemy at a war time, and everyone learned their lesson then. Now, these days any use of these weapons is totally unacceptable. Every sane government understands that. No U.S. war operation against dictators anywhere involved nuclear weapons. Now you say one has to have nuclear weapons to "protect themselves". Well, I think those who seriously consider resorting to this kind of weapon, no matter what the reason is, are insane and very dangerous folks, and it's only for that alone they deserve being taken down.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Well, I think those who seriously consider resorting to this kind of weapon, no matter what the reason is, are insane and very dangerous folks, and it's only for that alone they deserve being taken down.

So either governments of nuclear countries are all insane (including US) or you wrong. I think the second

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Well, I think those who seriously consider resorting to this kind of weapon, no matter what the reason is, are insane and very dangerous folks, and it's only for that alone they deserve being taken down.

From WWII nuclear weapon is used in diplomacy rather than in war. And it is perfectly effective.

I don't judge who deserves what and seriously consider what. I said that after fall of USSR foreign policy of USA is the main reason of spreading nukes. Am I wrong?

Originally Posted by it-ogo

From WWII nuclear weapon is used in diplomacy rather than in war. And it is perfectly effective.

I don't judge who deserves what and seriously consider what. I said that after fall of USSR foreign policy of USA is the main reason of spreading nukes. Am I wrong?

No, that's a great observation.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

I said that after fall of USSR foreign policy of USA is the main reason of spreading nukes. Am I wrong?

You're not wrong by establishing the relationship between those two things. However, I'd say the former is not necessarily the cause for the latter. A new successful weapon was bound to be replicated and improved. The first machine gun was successfully introduced en mass in the Anglo-Boer war. A few decades later all European countries used that weapon. Would you say that the foreign policy of the United Kingdom was the main reason of spreading machine guns?

Before the fall of the USSR, a country would typically not invest anything in its nuclear program. Why to bother? Take either the US side or the USSR side in politics! The superpowers would sort it out in matching the nuclear arsenal of each other. After the fall of the USSR, that freebie is not an option anymore. Hence, in my opinion, the attempts to cook up something in their own kitchen.