Obama, Medvedev and the Demise of Nuclear Deterrence

If our thousands of nuclear weapons actually do serve to deter, then why should we be concerned about a nuclear North Korea or a nuclear Iran? If they do not serve to deter, then why retain them at all?

It is not entirely clear to us why the international community considers it wholly legitimate for the United States to say, "if North Korea engages in aggression against South Korea or the United States, we will retaliate with nuclear weapons," while it universally condemns North Korea when it says, "if the United States engages in aggression against us, we will retaliate with nuclear weapons." Perhaps, in light of all this radioactive rhetoric, it is ... Full Story »

Posted by Dwight Rousu
Tags Help
Subjects: World
Topics: Nuclear Weapons
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Dwight Rousu - Aug 12, 2009 - 4:33 PM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Dwight Rousu - Aug 12, 2009 - 4:33 PM PDT

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Dwight Rousu
4.7
by Dwight Rousu - Aug. 12, 2009

An excellent writeup on the waste and futility of nuclear weapons, used or not used.

Nuclear weapons, what are they good for? Absolutely nothing.

See Full Review » (13 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.4

not enough reviews
from 2 reviews (19% confidence)
Quality
4.4
Information
3.5
Insight
5.0
Style
4.0
Context
4.5
Expertise
3.5
Originality
4.5
Relevance
5.0
Responsibility
5.0
Popularity
4.3
Recommendation
4.5
Credibility
4.5
# Reviews
1.0
# Views
2.6
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!