You should speak more carefully

According to the experience of recent decades, it can be basically clear that as long as you have nuclear weapons, no one dares to force you to the dead end. At best, there will be no large-scale invasion of the nuclear-armed countries due to such small conflicts as the China-India border and the Russian-Uzbekistan border. In that year, China beat Vietnam, Britain beat Argentina, including France against Libya, Russia against Georgia, the United States against other countries, and a country supported by nuclear bombs, how could it be guaranteed to be invincible first.

American aircraft carriers are running around. It is not how powerful they are. The most fundamental thing is that the nuclear bombs loaded by their Ohio class nuclear submarines are behind them. Dongfeng 21 and 26 have no problem in fighting aircraft carriers technically. The problem is to sink his aircraft carrier. What if he throws a nuclear bomb at you? Of course, China, Britain and France have strategic nuclear submarines and nuclear bombs, and no one dares to move the aircraft carriers of China, Britain and France. No one dares to move the Russian aircraft carrier.

In the past five or six years, the United States and the Soviet Union were always shouting to fight China. When China developed nuclear weapons, they calmed down and began to study dialogue. The United States also shouted to kill North Korea before. After the North Korea made the nuclear bomb go off, there was no sound.

We have analyzed the situation between China and India several times before. In terms of geography, productivity, combat effectiveness and so on, China has an absolute advantage. But now he also has nuclear bombs, which is his biggest concern. It is very troublesome not to throw it into China, bury it underground and detonate it. So you can’t beat him easily.

The reality is that there is a nuclear bomb, especially a reliable vehicle: missile. Basically, it can guarantee national security.

With a nuclear bomb, it is very deadly to put it in an intercontinental missile or a pickup truck, and to detonate itself in a neighboring country or border. Other countries are not willing to cause such a big event or take such a big risk. For example, if Iran produces two nuclear bombs, Israel will have to persuade it, which is inevitable. Israel is a city-scale country that cannot carry two nuclear bombs. Iran can send nuclear bombs with the old Scud missiles, even smuggling and smuggling. This is a risk. Who dares to take the risk of national subjugation? The country will perish in an accident. Which leader in charge dares to take this risk? I’m sure I can prevent it. If Iran has a nuclear bomb, the United States and Israel can only choose: peace talks. We can’t fight as we do now.

However, this is not equal to peace in the world

The most typical example is the Soviet Union

At that time, there were the Warsaw Pact organization, a huge alliance, the Soviet Union, a huge country, a super strong military force, tens of thousands of nuclear bombs As a result, the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union disintegrated, leaving Russia alone.

The nuclear bomb failed to organize the alliance and disintegrate the country. The nuclear bomb failed to prevent the decline of the country and the decline of the economy. The nuclear bomb also failed to prevent the whole camp from being divided. The nuclear bomb could not solve the problem that the Russians had no food at that time.

The nuclear bomb can be regarded as a powerful military force. Throughout the ages, there have been numerous cases in which a strong military force can defeat foreign enemies, but it can never prevent internal collapse. Foreign countries are too tight to throw nuclear bombs at him. It is impossible to throw nuclear bombs at his own family, no matter how big the problem is.

Problems are divided into internal problems and external problems, and internal problems and external problems are equally important, and even internal problems are more important than external problems.

I have always wanted to write a series. Through the ages, thousands of years, and up to now, there are still many people who have only considered half of a few things. These include internal and external problems. Some people are very sensitive to foreign invasion and resolutely resist it. But they are insensitive to the tyranny of their own people. The most typical is the Ming Dynasty in the field of history: the old Zhu family emperor is our fellow, and he will rule us, even if there is no food to eat, the famine, people starve to death in large areas, and eat Guanyin earth to support them The Great Ming Dynasty is also good. Li Zicheng should not resist even if he starved to death. Isn’t this a mental problem?

You can’t be bullied by foreigners

You can’t be bullied by your peers

Is there any difference between letting other people bully and letting the same people bully? No difference, the same.

Many people think of half and the other half, and then they are enslaved by their peers for generations. He also felt very proud that he had been enslaved, and worried about foreign people coming to enslave him all day.

I think that with nuclear weapons, the world will be at peace. Obviously, I have seen half of it. External problems. Nuclear weapons cannot solve the other half’s internal problems. It is often the internal problem that makes the world peaceful.

The human brain must be at least dual-core. We should look at internal and external problems at the same time and solve them at the same time. Nuclear weapons can create a relatively stable environment without disturbance, and then solve internal problems calmly. It is not the nuclear bomb that makes everything all right. If internal problems are not solved, they will not work.

People also have to walk on two legs, not only to build a strong military force, but also to build a happy society. If you jump on one leg, you must fall.

However, online chat can only be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. I have talked about nuclear bombs several times before, and China has increased nuclear bombs. Then someone jumped out and shouted,”You are a disaster to the country and the people, and you are militaristic. Why don’t you improve people’s livelihood with this energy?”. When I talked about people’s livelihood in another place, he shouted to you: Who can protect you without a strong army

As for our four-core and eight-threaded brain, we must take both sides into consideration. I don’t deny the people’s livelihood when it comes to nuclear bombs, nor do I deny the nuclear bombs when it comes to people’s livelihood. Cannon butter must be available, and cannot be chosen. It is one. Without cannon, you will have foreign invasion, and without butter, you will have civil strife. It’s just that we can’t talk together a lot of times. Then some people are bored to death.

However, nuclear weapons have to come back. It is not omnipotent, and nothing is absolutely impossible.

Only nuclear weapons can not solve the internal livelihood problems. But without nuclear weapons, outsiders would fight in.

The purpose of developing nuclear weapons is not to fight. Do you want to understand? With nuclear weapons, outsiders dare not provoke you, solve half of the problem, and then work hard to solve internal problems and solve the other half. This is a jungle world, without nuclear weapons and deterrence, others will inevitably hit you, and then internal and external problems will become unsolvable.

So I have always said that those who advocate the elimination of nuclear weapons are war maniacs.

If we discard nuclear weapons, we must fight. We can understand this with our heels.

Without nuclear weapons, there would be no peace in the world

Original article,If reprinted, please indicate the source:https://www.todaynews.cc/news/5YJzNVY.html