Date: 2010-10-13 03:00 pm (UTC)
It's explicitly advertised as a deterrent.

Good point. I'll assume it was good value for money, and that I just hallucinated all the wars we've been in since we got the bomb.

Your line of thinking demands we also abandon preparedness training for types of incident which haven't happened. This would also save money, until it does happen, and then we'd wring our hands.

Well, I would say my line of thinking demands we abandon ridiculously expensive preparations for types of incident which are vanishingly unlikely to happen. I would vote against building a lightning-proof bunker in case the great and terrible Zeus should decide to smite me, for instance.

Honestly, I don't disagree that it might work as a deterrent, but we don't actually have a lot of evidence to prove that it does. After all, we attack countries that we think have nuclear weapons pretty much with impunity. I just think that money might better be spent preparing for something we know will happen (i.e. millions of teenagers go to university in september) instead of preparing for something we know almost certainly won't.

(will be screened)
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org

Profile

nmg: (Default)
Nick Gibbins

September 2012

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23 242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 30th, 2025 10:49 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios