An interesting topic, Deepow, but would you rather focus on the technology, the weapons, or is this to be a religious debate, or a historical one?
Technologically, yes, we've all advanced, and more advance is to be expected. It has been spotted early on, that the use of satellites as bases for weapons, would be extremely hazardous, and might cause some leaders to use them without thinking too much. It would also have forced the world to either do the same, or surrender to the will of those countries that have them. So everyone agreed not to do it. This agreement still stands today.
Information is also something that wasn't readily available, just 50 years ago: I don't know how the Japanese live, but I certainly don't need much googling now, to get a fair idea.
Fanaticism is what causes a country's population to go to such extremes, as to sacrifice their own lives, at the call of a leader. It is a structure that emcompasses both the government of a country and the religious leadership all into one. It's actually quite hard to get to that point, but fairly easy to maintain. In sharp contrast, the US has attempted to make clearer seperations between the government and religion (but not being able to recite a prayer at a school football game might be taking it a bit too far).
So is the solution to get rid of fanaticism? Are there instances where fanaticism is acceptable?
As for WMDs, yes, there is a gentleman's rule: rules of engagement or rules of war, if you prefer. Under the S.A.L.T. treaty, all nuclear weapon bearing countries have agreed not to use them, but the treaty never said anything about not having them, but mentions something about how one could use them, if one was used against them, or something like that...
There are many weapons that are not used, that could have been developped. I don't care to get into the technical details, but I'll mention landmines which, at the request of the late Diana, are slowly being phased out.
|