Do you think nuclear proliferation is basically inevitable?

In the current climate, I do. The only thing I can think of getting in the way of it with the way things presently are is if the uranium decays away and leaves too little left. Though since it has a half-life of about 704million years, that doesn't seem likely.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

ButterFly2023 · 18-21, M

It's pretty good for world peace. For various "reasons," personally I suspect a lack of real balls, the US hasn't attacked Iran, Pakistan and NK yet and over the decades, it's been very justified by their usual stated values for invading someone, this observation can only inspire others. Every decade Haiti gets invaded for some reason. On the flipside everyone in Europe used this argument prior to WW I which was basically stated, "War is too destructive now, it won't happen."

Xuan12 · 31-35, M

@ButterFly2023 True, they are a huge deterrent, but that's only useful as long as there are no accidents, and nobody goes of the rails and actually uses one. The Cold War was described as two men standing waist deep in gasoline, one holding three matches, the other holding five matches. Imagine if the room had 200 match bearing people instead.

ButterFly2023 · 18-21, M

I did state this with my WW I reference, it's inevitable it will fuck up. It's a runaway train now. NK is going to sell the tech if the US doesn't stop swinging dick and I don't think they can, everyone is tied to the tracks.

Xuan12 · 31-35, M

@ButterFly2023 Ah, I misinterpreted that part.

TexChik · F

Certainly Obama and Clinton tried to pave the way for that . But rogue nations have no business with nuclear weapons . Stop them and you stop proliferation.

View 2 more replies »

Xuan12 · 31-35, M

@TexChik And Reagan.

TexChik · F

@Xuan12 no Nukes

Xuan12 · 31-35, M

@TexChik No, he sold them convential weapons and gave the money to terrorists.

Deadcutie · 18-21, F

I don’t worry about it..

Xuan12 · 31-35, M

@Deadcutie Fair enough.

SW-User

Nah.

Add a comment...