Nukes

A few weeks ago, Obama and Medvedev (the presidents for the United States and Russia respectively) signed an historic arms agreement that essentially reduced the amount of nuclear warheads that each country could have in it's arsenal. However, the United States is looking at new means of defense to replace the lost weapons systems. The New York Times describes the weapons under consideration as well suited for quick, pinpoint attacks that would be able to take out, say, a nuclear facility in Iran without all the nuclear fall-out.

The thing is, these new weapons actually make conflict MORE likely. Part of the historic reasons for even having nukes is that they preserve the balance of power between nations; if you hit the button, they hit the button, and everyone dies. But with these new weapons, the damage isn't as great, at least in a localized sense. So the incentive NOT to launch isn't as high, especially on the peripheries of the larger nations.

Russia worries that these attacks may be directed at them. Naw, because Russia still has nukes. But smaller nations that aren't allowed nukes are definitely at greater risk of an attack.

Could be bunk, but it's interesting to think about.