Nuclear Threat - The Real Conspiracy Theory

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Jan 9, 2022 at 23:46

Did we arrive at a conclusion on the question of who started the nuclear capability in this modern age? No?
Was it a conspiracy theory that was started by wartime contenders? No?
Was there any question when America 'nuked' Japan with a weapon designed for global domination by other powers than America which failed for that moment in history, America could no longer be ignored globally?
And yet, within the American model of freedom, there were sympathizers with a decidedly socialistic empathy with the unfriendly Soviet Union that sought and succeeded to appropriate those nuclear capabilities in order to obtain something that the global community has not yet admitted, is singularly the most tragic affront to the safety and peace of the world as a whole; and to a greater threat, the desires to eliminate certain societies deemed unfit to share life in global freedom.
The former Soviet menace is no longer the basis of that threat; indeed, they were not the first. But who is; and why the worry?
Should the world be upset that the Iranian Islamic Regime is on the road to nuclear capability when its entirety of desires is to threaten (with evidently admitted intensely seated thoughts to perpetrate evil) towards the nation of Israel: or is there any sense of similar irrational thinking that were the secret desires of similar nuclear plans and preparations more than seventy years ago as the world ramped up towards what was then prelude to global domination by any means, no matter the cost? Who does this? Is there conspiracy here?
In the last scenario, the last nation anyone suspected would be able to counter such a threat actually came from behind and by a succession of turnaround events, brought a sense of freedom over all in order to bring a sense that the world might be able to survive evil and the demonically driven efforts to globalize a rebellion to law and order; and further to seek out and bring about the final causes of destroying freedom of choice in the human spirit and eventual destruction of mankind altogether in the nuclear aftermath.
Who harbors any hope now that being able to corral any renegade efforts of bringing about global domination by any means can be accomplished when that former bastion of freedom can no longer cite voluntary sympathies towards the only government that once held noble thoughts ingrained in the once cherished Constitution, such thinking now shredded by erudite notions in conspiracy theories that honoring what was once the greatest efforts of maintaining those freedoms are now ridiculed by rebels to a cause that hates humanity.
Some say that there are (or were) conspiracy theories that have brought about the current disastrous changes of course in historical events; that the fires of rebellion in the United States are now common place as they are around the globe, now a commonality in that the same rebellion from the times of the fallen empires are now embraced with similar thoughts of self-seeking ambitions of empire that cannot ever hope to bring hope to humanity for the lack of any empathy towards a failing mankind.
It was once thought that the technological advances of nuclear capabilities would be beneficial to the prosperity of humanity; now what does that notion bring? That notion is irreparably lost and indefensible in any effort to further justify allowing any new attempts to increase the nuclear arsenal of any national or international entity that seeks excuses to mount an offensive in the global community. It is here that contempt towards conspiracy theories should be concentrated and eliminated.
But, after all is said and done, conspiracy theories are always going to be part of local and global politics; right? The problem is that once the theory is proven, it is too late.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".