Finally a chance to express my distinct views! Well, first, an interesting topic arose in
the recent model congress. The debate was "to destroy all weapons of mass
destruction". The main arguement for this was that these weapons pose an immediate
threat and need to be dismantled. However, I have quite a different view.
From the beginning of the cold war, ICBMs have given countries the power to reach out
and kill someone without getting their feet wet. The Russians and Americans, taking
note of this new power, decided it was a good idea to stockpile these weapons. And,
with the creation of the nuclear bomb a decade ago then, they had a full-out nuclear
arms race, with each country promising mutual annihilation. That word meant all of the
difference in the cold war, and the threat of global destruction averted war on more
than one occasion. But this wasn't the first, or last, weapon system designed to be so
terrible as to end war.
The Gatling gun, the first machine gun ever created, was designed to make war so
terrible and costly in not only funds, but lives as well, as to avert war altogether.
However, this plan backfired, and it was that gun that aided in the western conquest of
the United States, AKA manifest destiny.
As the years progressed, more weapons of mass destruction were created, ending
with the chemical and biological agents of today. And now there is a new threat on the
horizon. Antimatter, created at your local particle accelerator, is more powerful than a
nuclear warhead, and without the nuclear radiation. This weapon hopefully will never be
used, but if it was used, the results, as depicted in "Angels and Deamons" by Dan
Brown, would be catastrophic. However, this "weapon" holds more promise as a safe,
effective means of power generation than a WMD, and hopefully the world will
recognize this plain fact and use it for good, not bad.
So, in conclusion, it is my belief that the threat of mutual annihalation is keeping the
world more or less at peace, and if anything, we need more weapons of mass
destruction, not less.
