Nuclear Weapons Should Not Be Abolished?

Should nuclear weapons be abolished? To many, the answer might seem obvious given the economic cost and, more important, the destructive power of these weapons. The use of just a small percentage of the tens of thousands of weapons that exist could kill millions of people and leave large areas of the Earth uninhabitable for generations. For better or worse, however, the question of abolishing nuclear weapons is actually quite complicated. Nevertheless, the best answer to the question of whether they should be abolished in the foreseeable future turns out to be “no.” Still, it would be unwise to assume that such weapons will forever remain unused simply because individuals and governments have exercised restraint to date. If deterrence should break down for any reason, the human toll of any nuclear weapons use would be great. The bombs dropped by the United States on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the final days of World War II (1939-1945) demonstrated the awful destructive power of what were two relatively small and primitive weapons. Today’s bombs are far more powerful and, if they were used, would therefore cause damage on a far greater scale. This is what deterrence, or prevention, is all about. Deterring a nuclear war requires making sure that your adversaries know that they will not benefit from using nuclear weapons first. This, in turn, requires that all parties maintain “second strike” capabilities—that is, the ability to survive a nuclear attack and still retaliate so that the side striking first gains no advantage. Safety will be the sturdy child of terror, and survival the twin brother of annihilation, vividly captures this concept. Indeed, this idea of mutual vulnerability, or mutual assured destruction, is so central to deterrence that it was codified by the then-superpowers in a 1972 treaty that severely limited defense against ballistic missiles. Would a world without nuclear weapons be more peaceful? Not necessarily. War was commonplace between and within states for the centuries of recorded history before the advent of the nuclear age. There is little reason to believe that human nature has progressed to the point where the traditional sources of conflict—ideologies, nationalism, religion, greed, ambition—are even close to being obsolete. A nuclear weapons-free world would be better off in the sense that a cataclysmic conflict was no longer a possibility, but arguably worse off in the sense that lesser but still terrible forms of conflict would become less risky and hence more frequent. Managing the transition to a world without nuclear weapons would be difficult, as even a small amount of cheating could have significance. What would have to change for it to be both possible and safe to move to a nuclear weapons-free world? Nothing less than a basic transformation of international politics would be required. Tensions between governments would have to fade dramatically; trust between them would have to grow. Abolition of nuclear weapons in and of itself would not bring about an abolition of tension or conflict. To the contrary, it would lead to a world of more frequent violence if the restraining features of nuclear deterrence were removed and not replaced by better political relations. Such consensus and sense of community is a long way off. For now, nuclear weapons are a condition to be managed rather than a problem to be solved.

What is Entourage

“Entourage” is “Entourage,” though. I don’t even feel any animus towards it. The show had been awful for several seasons and the first two episodes of the new season aren’t awful. No wincing at all. They’re just forgettable and disposable and not very funny. They make more of an impact on their audience if it’s only a half an hour. It makes you want more and more, which it seems like it’s doing it’s job. Also, if it was an hour show it would become less funny and entertaining because of all of the commercials that they would have to run. I would rather watch a well put together comedy show that is only 30 minutes with less commercials than to watch an hour comedy show with more commercials that loses it’s comedic effect. I love to watch television shows during night and one of my favorite TV series is Entourage. I understand that there are people who like “True Blood” and also like either “Entourage” or both. I also understand that the rise of “True Blood” from cult favorite to mainstream hit definitely benefited both comedies last season. I also watch both shows still because there are fleeting moments when seems like a show I might like (though rarely full episodes) and there are also fleeting moments when “Entourage” reminds me of the show I once actively enjoyed. If your a big fan of True Blood then Watch Entourage Season 7 Episode 9 this coming Sunday, August 29, 2010 at 10:30 PM (PT/ET

Your True Blood Means

True blood means that you were born to a certain clan or life style. like if you lived in tribes and your mother was from one tribe and your father was from another, you would be half blood. If both your parents were from the same tribe, you would be true blood. I personally think it is a rather rude and insulting name that should not be used to describe people or animals. I love to watch television shows during night and one of my favorite TV series is True Blood. True Blood is based on The Southern Vampire Mysteries series of novels by Charlaine Harris, and details the co-existence of vampires and humans in Bon Temps, a fictional small Louisiana town. The series centers on Sookie Stackhouse, a telepathic waitress at a bar, who falls in love with vampire Bill Compton. In True Blood, the show acknowledges as reality that supernatural creatures (such as vampires, telepaths, and shapeshifters amongst others) exist. Vampires are shown in a very unique way on True Blood as their existence is public knowledge, which makes it very different from most other vampire shows such as Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Blade. Two years prior to the events taking place during the series, vampires “come out of the coffin” (a term coined as a play on “coming out of the closet”), when scientists in Japan invent a synthetic form of blood called “Tru Blood”.E-1 No longer having to rely on human blood to survive, vampires are able to integrate themselves into human society. If your a big fan of True Blood then Watch True Blood Season 3 Episode 11: Fresh Blood this coming Sunday, August 29, 2010 at 9 pm ET on HBO

Hearty Vegetables Stew

I think Laswa is a good example of what Ilonggo cuisine is all about. It is simple to prepare and the ingredients has to be fresh. My Lolo (grandfather) used to have a vegetable garden in his backyard and on some days my Lola (grandmother) would go there and pick whatever vegetable is in season and make it into a stew.

The flavor of Laswa is clean and sweet from the different vegetables you add to it. There is really no standard vegetables that you can use, but I would suggest that Okra should be there because it gives body to the stew and squash for added sweetness and color and whatever vegetables that are in season. I use shrimp as my soup base but you can use chicken stock or pork if you prefer, some use dried fish as a soup base too. This stew is a great side dish for grilled or fried food to counter balance the richness of the meat.

The crucial part of making Laswa is understanding the cooking point of the vegetables, there has to be a hierarchy when adding the vegetables to the stock. That is why this dish is best prepared at home, I don’t like eating this dish at turo-turo restaurants since they are continually getting heated up and thus the vegetables get overcooked.

//