5,175
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 32:
Line 32: + + + + +
Debate:Were both sides in the Cold War morally equivalent? (view source)
Revision as of 21:26, August 21, 2007
, 21:26, August 21, 2007Sure, why not...
==OTHER==
==OTHER==
Er... I feel like the point was missed, although that may be *me* missing the point. From my point of view, the moral equivalence issue, while interesting, isn't the first concern. No country, I would venture, thinks of itself as evil. I doubt that evil people do, either. And before you say it, I believe in good and evil just fine, thanks.
Instead, again from my POV, what matters is that a country feels legitimately threatened. Given the Bush Doctrine of preemptive action against threats to the US (which is a subject for its own debate page), is it really that far-fetched that Russia, or Iran, or anybody else that doesn't get along with the US, to harbor some suspicion of an attack? And in that heightened environment, is it really far-fetched for Russia to vehemently oppose a technology that would unbalance MAD?
I mean, really, you can start from the assumption of an Evil Russia and a Good United States and still have the problem that Russia doesn't want missile defense technology deployed. In fact, an Evil Russia would be even more likely to preemptively strike us, nuclear-ly speaking, wouldn't they? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:26, 21 August 2007 (EDT) ''<-Pointer Brother...''