Talk:Introduction to Strategic Studies/Nuclear Strategy

Quote: Sorry, copied it with template
Just a note that the quote in this page was incorrect. I copied it over from the "Policy by other means" class. The actual quote I wanted here is something a little more relevant to the subject matter. I will look for something better. As it stands, the quote for "policy by other means" ended before saying "absolutely nothing" because the question asked by the quote is the question the class seeks to ask.--Dnjkirk 03:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph moved
Well, I guess we'd better find some more precise and academic way to teach that thing ! Here's what I 've cut from the original article: Discarding all this talk about nuclear war, conventional warfare is still used in the world. In our multi-polar international environment, nuclear weapons do not assure a perfect deterrence. Even though it is possible to flatten a minor adversary with one of the feared NBC weapons (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, also called WMD, for Weapons of Mass Destruction), it is considered something of a faux-pas by other major players in the international system. Think of it like intentionally farting at a party. There is a time and place for that kind of thing, and it’s not at the nice parties. No, it has to be a special occasion, when your back is against the wall, or someone else farts first. Until then, you’ve got to take the high road lest everyone else gang up on you to teach you some manners. Here we are with that high road again – the moral high ground. People don’t like attackers, they like defenders. It’s another reason not to go around attacking people, another reason why ganging up and twisting their arm is far more acceptable than beating them senseless by oneself. This makes a good segue for a Liberal analysis of Nuclear Strategy...

Any volonteer to update this paragraph, please ? --CorentinB 23:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)