Fai clic su di un'immagine per andare a Google Ricerca Libri.
Sto caricando le informazioni... Nuclear Weapons: A Very Short Introductiondi Joseph M. Siracusa
Nessuno Sto caricando le informazioni...
Iscriviti per consentire a LibraryThing di scoprire se ti piacerà questo libro. Attualmente non vi sono conversazioni su questo libro. nessuna recensione | aggiungi una recensione
Appartiene alle Serie
In a fluid and uncertain world, wracked by fears of terrorism, the Bomb matters. Indeed it may matter more today than at any time before or during the Cold War. This book reveals why - providing a lucid and chilling account of nuclear weapons, their history, their role in global politics, and how we have - so far - managed to avoid armageddon. - ;Despite not having been used in anger since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Bomb is still the biggest threat that faces us in the 21st century. As Bill Clinton's first secretary of defence, Les Aspin, aptly put it: 'The Cold War is over, the Soviet Union Non sono state trovate descrizioni di biblioteche |
Discussioni correntiNessunoCopertine popolari
Google Books — Sto caricando le informazioni... GeneriSistema Decimale Melvil (DDC)623.45119Technology Engineering and allied operations Military Engineering and Marine Engineering Technology of Weapons and Armaments Explosives, Rockets, and BombsClassificazione LCVotoMedia:
Sei tu?Diventa un autore di LibraryThing. |
All of that was good, if not occasionally repetitive. What I had hoped to see was more scientific and technical detail behind, not only the creation of the early bombs, but current technology, and where we are heading. And I didn't get that. I also wanted to see more of a discussion on the ethics behind this, and on the justifications of maintaining the current seven nuclear powers while working to ensure no other country, and especially no other country the US "disapproves" of (Iran...), obtains nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapon industry. I mean, why is it okay for Pakistan to have them, but not Iran? Why is it okay for Israel to be thought of of having them (they won't admit to it), while other countries cannot? I'm not saying I support the idea of more or warmongering countries getting nuclear weapons, but who made America the planet's god, to decide who gets them and who doesn't? That strikes me as incredibly arrogant and hypocritical. And I'm American! Naturally, the world would be better off without nuclear weapons, but that genie is out of the bottle, so this is a complex problem requiring, yes, political and diplomatic discussions and solutions, and not saber rattling. I'm currently reading another book on "limited" nuclear warfare for the 21st century. It's incredibly interesting, and I think it would make a good companion piece to this book, maybe as Volume 2 of a two volume series. Because that's where the world has gone, that's where the world should and will have to go if we intend to not commit global suicide, and nuclear power countries need to dialogue about these issues and more.
This book doesn't have the highest rating out there, and I've read a lot of reviews and it seems mostly due to lack of sufficient discussion on a wide range of topics, such as I've brought up. But I think its lower rating is unfair, because the subtitle for the book is "A Very Short Introduction." What the hell do you expect for 150 pages?!? Of course I would have liked more. For that, I need to buy a 750 page textbook for $200. This was exactly what it advertised itself to be, so I feel it merits four stars at a minimum. If this is a topic that interests you, I certainly recommend it. ( )