Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
This proves my position. MAD is not a legitimate theory because the only evidence to support it is the lack of a nuclear war. I am in no way arguing that the lack of a terror attack proves Bush's policies. Therefore, it stands to reason that arms control agreements or theories like MAD are useless, and we need to heavily invest in new nuclear technologies and new missile defense programs in order to ensure the safety of America. The big supporters of nuclear cuts and arms control agreements are the Left. I am simply saying we are relying on an unproven, outdated idea to shape our nuclear policy, and it is ridiculous. What is more ridiculous is that this is a position Obama supports. Cutting missile defense spending, and cutting nuclear arsenals is one of his stated goals. Often, on this board in fact, left leaning posters argue that nuclear cuts should be a priority because we do not need so many bombs to ensure our safety. They argue that even if we each have 100 it maintains the idea of mutually assured destruction. These same posters then attack those on the right for crediting Bush with the fact that there has been no terror attack on US soil since 9/11. I find this position ridiculous, given that they place so much faith in an untested, unproven theory that follows the same logic.
This proves my position. MAD is not a legitimate theory because the only evidence to support it is the lack of a nuclear war. I am in no way arguing that the lack of a terror attack proves Bush's policies.
Therefore, it stands to reason that arms control agreements or theories like MAD are useless, and we need to heavily invest in new nuclear technologies and new missile defense programs in order to ensure the safety of America. The big supporters of nuclear cuts and arms control agreements are the Left.
I am simply saying we are relying on an unproven, outdated idea to shape our nuclear policy, and it is ridiculous. What is more ridiculous is that this is a position Obama supports. Cutting missile defense spending, and cutting nuclear arsenals is one of his stated goals.
Often, on this board in fact, left leaning posters argue that nuclear cuts should be a priority because we do not need so many bombs to ensure our safety. They argue that even if we each have 100 it maintains the idea of mutually assured destruction. These same posters then attack those on the right for crediting Bush with the fact that there has been no terror attack on US soil since 9/11. I find this position ridiculous, given that they place so much faith in an untested, unproven theory that follows the same logic.
