"A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us."
Said by former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. I'm not making this up - she had honestly convinced herself the world was LESS dangerous as a result of the existence of weapons capable of wiping out most of the human race within a matter of minutes.
Isn't that the standard Tory position? That nuclear weapons have given us the longest period of relative peace in history (at least between industrial nations)? It strikes me as more honest than Labour's "we're gagging to disarm - but everyone else on the planet has to go first".
ReplyDeleteExactly the same argument Alfred Nobel used about dynamite. And he was also wrong. But the Mutually Assured Destruction argument was born.
ReplyDeleteNo-one believed Nobel's dynamite would not be used for war. (And it was, obviously.)
Nobel was so irked that no-one believed his Mutually Assured Destruction argument that he bequeathed a Peace Prize on his death.
Hate to agree with Maggie on this one, but when has a nuclear-armed nation been invaded?
ReplyDeleteBased on that theory, all you need for world peace is for every one of the 200 or so nations on this planet to be armed with a US-style thermonuclear arsenal. Would that make you feel safe, or less safe?
ReplyDelete