Raphaël's article:
Russia to upgrade nuclear systems:
Do we -countries- need deterrents? What about the non-proliferation Treaty? A dead letter?
Your opinion on this thorny matter.
Antoine's article:
Terror suspects held on plane
"All the news that is fit to print ": what does the phrase "fit to print mean" in your opinion?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Personally I think deterrents is a good thing for world peace. Paradoxically, it is when a country is the most armed when it is the less attacked. I see no reason why countries develop their Treaty for peace.
However it is when other countries (perhaps Iran) is developing its nuclear weapons for an attack. Furthermore, when we know the performance of new Treaty, it would be catastrophic for all the planet. It is terrifying even as countries are working on plans for attacks against other countries, like Iran is currently working to defy the United States, even if it is not nuclear. All this under the eyes of Russia, which would have no objection with this scenario ...
Finally, the deterrents is a very good thing if it remains so and countries do not us their weapons.
As me I'm concerned deterrents could be a good thing. Indeed if every countries spend lot of money to increase their defence , they don't spend money to attack each-others , and citizens feels secured . Moreover a country is more indecisive by attacking a defensive country than a country with less.
However few countries hates others and their governments could do anything to attack their enemies and an increase of defence budget couldn't stop terrorism or militarises acts .
Finally we haven't a good answer to stop this weapons run and it's high time we took the danger of our technologies.
As far as I'm concerned,I think deterrents is a solution to protect the peace. Everybody knows that if a war begins, it won't be like before, the weapons used will be nuclear, so it will destroy our Earth. Even if the big countries get more weapons than they should have, they are just for threat, not to attack others coutries. The non-proliferation treaty is just a nice letter : it is not respected. Who can stop USA or Russia to get weapons ? Moreover, the scientists keep developping the technology, to get better weapons. Weapons are not for attack, but to make people feel safer. So, to conclude, I agree with what Russia is doing.
Personally, I think deterrents are used to keep safe a country with its population. However, it causes competivity between powerful countries.
Moreover, some corrupted countries abuse with deterrents. Oficially they are pro-peace. But in fact, they use it for economic goals. For instance, Russia which is growing thanks to weapons. They made these just for selling and to earn money. They use the fear for their business.
However, we can highlight that the more a country increases their weapons, the more they will be protected. Because it deters another country to attack. Furthermore, I think it is all the more flabergasted as countries go on deterrents activities for safety. Indeed nowadays, weapons are very sophisticated and it can damage all the world: such as atomic bomb. We must not burst limits.
This way, the treaty for non-proliferation is useless because it is not respected. Paradoxical though it may seem, countries which are approving this treaty, are constantly rising their own weapons. For instance, Russia and USA. Besides, they dare to critisize Iran without knowing its true intention.
To conclude we can say , before blaming a country for his acts, let's begin to reflect our position on this. So we are bound to be exemplary.
'All the news that is fit to print' means journalists can published all news they get, without exceptions.It's shows the freedom of expression of the media.People want to know about everything and very quickly, the media offer what they want as soon as they have piece of news.it means ,the media have no limit for example, they don't mind about threat the liberty of politicians' life.
The deterrents is - for the more developped countries - a way to dissuade enemies to attack and I think that this is good things. Unfortunaly, it has also double cutting effect: countries which does not control very well their weapons (like the renegades and rebels in civils war) can have catastrophic results. So I believe that these decision must not be taken without reflexion and diplomatic debates will always be more promising than deployement of the army.
Personally, I think the media uses their powers without to mesure consequences.It is right information is the main target but there are things in the world which must not or should not be to diffuse.
The deterrents is - for the more developped countries - a way to dissuade enemies to attack and I think that this is good things. Unfortunaly, it has also double cutting effect: countries which does not control very well their weapons (like the renegades and rebels in civils war) can have catastrophic results. So I believe that these decision must not be taken without reflexion and diplomatic debates will always be more promising than deployement of the army.
Personally, I think the media uses their powers without to mesure consequences.It is right information is the main target but there are things in the world which must not or should not be to diffuse.
Post a Comment