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

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.