Sponsored Ad:
See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Nuclear deterrence

  1. #1
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    11
    Rep Power
    9


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Good post? Yes | No

    Nuclear deterrence

    Sponsored Ad:
    That the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is unquestionable. Since the end of the Second World War, the very fact that there were nuclear armaments in existence has kept major powers from using nuclear weapons, for fear of starting a worldwide nuclear exchange that would make the land of the power initiating it uninhabitable. The proof is that a third world war between superpowers has not happened.

Which one of the following, if true, indicates a flaw in the argument?

    A. Maintaining a high level of nuclear armaments represents a significant drain on a country’s economy.
    B. From what has happened in the past, it is impossible to infer with certainty what will happen in the future, so an accident could still trigger a third world war between superpowers.
    C. Continuing to produce nuclear weapons beyond the minimum needed for deterrence increases the likelihood of a nuclear accident.
    D. The major powers have engaged in many smaller-scale military operations since the end of the Second World War, while refraining from a nuclear confrontation.
    E. It cannot be known whether it was nuclear deterrence that worked, or some other factor, such as a recognition of the economic value of remaining at peace.

  2. #2
    Trying to make mom and pop proud
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    3
    Rep Power
    9


    Good post? Yes | No
    The Answer is E .
    Main Conclusion: the policy of nuclear deterrence has worked thus far is unquestionable
    Reasoning:Fear of starting a worldwidde Nuclear Exchange is the reasons why Superpowers hesitates to go for a Nuclear Conflict.
    All except Option E gives an alternate explanation:i.e
    It cannot be known whether it was nuclear deterrence that worked, or some other factor, such as a recognition of the economic value of remaining at peace

  3. #3
    Within my grasp! sandeep_chads's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    437
    Rep Power
    15


    Good post? Yes | No
    Author supports - Nuclear policy has acted like a deterrent
    Reason - WW 3 has not happened

    Flaw should be something that weakens this relationship or something that tells us that Nuclear Policy may not still be a deterrent

    Option E tells us that the Nuclear policy may not be there.. it is the economic reason that there is no war
    Hey Harvard, I am right here!!
    rep me if I made some sense

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Nuclear fusion
    By bond_am in forum GMAT Sentence Correction
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 12-13-2008, 06:11 AM
  2. nuclear pharmacy??
    By marcopolo1234 in forum FPGEE
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-24-2007, 06:01 PM
  3. As U.S. nuclear attack
    By abhijit_s_2000 in forum GMAT Sentence Correction
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-12-2006, 09:26 PM
  4. nuclear blast
    By prarabh in forum GMAT Critical Reasoning
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-18-2006, 02:27 AM
  5. Nuclear Fusion - nuclear reactor
    By msinh in forum GMAT Sentence Correction
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-31-2005, 02:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •