Peace Keeper or World Destroyer?

I think it helped pull the breaks on the war train that had been going since the first world war

However, nuclear proliferation will mean that eventually some dingbat with no sense of morality will get their hands on material he (or she) can use to effect tremendous harm on x country, people, or whatever else they don't like.

File: nuke frog.gif (2MB, 695x392px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 695x392px

>>2659683
Making nuclear weapons is harder than it appears, and if its a singlular person, its damn near impossible. Even nations have a tough time making nuclear weapons.
I think that if Pakistan and India, two nations notorious for hating each other and not afraid to actually shoot it out, aren't willing to nuke each other, it really says a lot about how deterrence is still a legitimate argument for nuclear weapons. That said, the future is never certain.

Peace keeper, so far.

you know how like in Roman times they would take or exchange some of their enemies kids back to their city and hold them hostage to ensure their good behavior? With rocketry you just skip the whole exchange part but the principle is the same.

World keeper!
Peace destroyer!

>>2659702
The idea of an insane individual refers to batshot leaders of countries who have nuclear capabilities. For instance, Castro was willing to let Cuba be incinerated by nuclear armageddon if that was what it took to combat the evil US imperialists. Luckily Chruschev replied to this idea with "are you out of your fucking mind?".

It could happen, although for most leaders it is absokutely unthinkable.