Külm sõda: erinevus redaktsioonide vahel

{{toimeta}}

 

:Kui [[aatompomm]] oleks midagi nii odavat ning lihtsalt toodetavat nagu [[jalgratas]] või [[äratuskell]], siis oleks see meid viinud tagasi barbaarsusesse, või oleks hoopis tähendanud riikliku suveräänsuse lõppu ning viinud tugevalt tsentraliseeritud [[politseiriik|politseiriigi]] kehtestamini. Kui aatompomm on aga hoopis haruldane ning kulukas ese — milline ta praegu tundubki olevat —, ning mida on sama keerukas valmistada kui lahingulaeva, siis pigem lõpetab see laiaulatuslikud sõjad pikendades lõputult "rahu, mis pole rahu" seisundit.

** {{halliga|Looking at the world as a whole, the drift for many decades has been not towards anarchy but towards the reimposition of slavery. We may be heading not for general breakdown but for an epoch as horribly stable as the slave empires of antiquity. James Burnham's theory has been much discussed, but few people have yet considered its ideological implications — that is, the kind of world-view, the kind of beliefs, and the social structure that would probably prevail in a state which was at once unconquerable and in a permanent state of "cold war" with its neighbors. <br/>Had the atomic bomb turned out to be something as cheap and easily manufactured as a bicycle or an alarm clock, it might well have plunged us back into barbarism, but it might, on the other hand, have meant the end of national sovereignty and of the highly-centralised police state. If, as seems to be the case, it is a rare and costly object as difficult to produce as a battleship, it is likelier to put an end to large-scale wars at the cost of prolonging indefinitely a "peace that is no peace."}}