Andrew Ashworth vs Margaret McCartney: Nuclear weapons do harm, even if never used
Andrew makes the breathtaking claim that "Historical evidence shows that no nations with nuclear weapons have engaged in war (the practice of putting young men at risk to support the aspirations of older politicians) since Nagasaki.". I presume he meant to add "With each other"? But what of the Korean War, when Russian Migs fought US jets, and Chinese troops fought US troops, and MacArthur was forcibly retired after advocating nuclear escalation?? So his premise is thankfully mistaken. Thankfully I say, because it were true, then he has argued the perfect case for North Korea and all other nations to obtain nuclear weapons, in their belief that it will deter war between States forever. Some mistake, Andrew, surely??
Rapid Response:
Andrew Ashworth vs Margaret McCartney: Nuclear weapons do harm, even if never used
Andrew makes the breathtaking claim that "Historical evidence shows that no nations with nuclear weapons have engaged in war (the practice of putting young men at risk to support the aspirations of older politicians) since Nagasaki.". I presume he meant to add "With each other"? But what of the Korean War, when Russian Migs fought US jets, and Chinese troops fought US troops, and MacArthur was forcibly retired after advocating nuclear escalation?? So his premise is thankfully mistaken. Thankfully I say, because it were true, then he has argued the perfect case for North Korea and all other nations to obtain nuclear weapons, in their belief that it will deter war between States forever. Some mistake, Andrew, surely??
I agree with Margaret, of course.
Competing interests: No competing interests