I got more thoughts on “stalemate.”
you use this as if it is some form of disciplined reasoning. develope nukes, join the stalemate and give peace a chance!
the basis of this logic is that the attainers are not madmen and know they would destroy the world and thats why they dont use them. well what about people like George Bush or Harry Truman? Truman used them and Bush has announced he will use them even against non-nuclear states!
if world leaders are so rational then why dont we adhere to the NPT and stop producing and proliferating? why doesnt the US join the world and ending the stalemate by doing away with production, threats, proliferation, etc and put safe controls over existing stocks that could be converted to peaceful uses and then allow FISSBAN to proceed from there?
again, the whole concept of stalemate is not one about peace or security. its extremely barbaric militancy that seeks to use destructive weapons as a form of coercion and intimidation. the prospects of accidents, use or theft is too high to play a game driven by machismo and testosterone.
the problem comes down to two things: if we are reasonable and thats why stalemate works then we dont need stalemate because we are reasonable; and if we arent reasonable then stalemate is even more dangerous and all it achieves is upping the ante of possible annhilation.
again, and lucky for us, the world is apparently not behind “stalemate.” the solution is much easier. we just need to “compel” our own government to participate and cease and desist the belligerence.