| A little realism.
The world has always been run by those with the best weapon technology.
First the stirrups, then the English longbow, the cannon, the gun, and so-on and so-forth. The winner in a war is not the one with the overwelming numbers but the better weapons.
The best defense is a good offense. Or in other words, if my weapons are better then your weapons you won't attack me. If you short change your countries weapon technology development you set your country up for a fall.
Yes, the a-bomb is a terrible weapon of devestating effect. However because of it's development further technology has been built upon it's foundation that now allow us to fight wars dirrectly against governments and militaries without involving the general populace. It used to be if you went to war you had to take out the entire country, one person at a time. Now we have strategic, surgical strikes. For the first time in history war can be an occurance between the elite not the people. The number of dead in strategic operations are at an all time low. Historians are quite plainly, shocked.
The real question isn't whether we need the weapons but who you trust to have them? |