There are rumors that Nixon would get drunk and talk about using the bomb. There are also stories that one of the leaders of France did much the same. But it is the stories from the Soviet Union that are truly horrific.
Each glass was much smaller than a one oz. shot glass, but by the time they drank twenty or so glasses the dignitaries were very drunk. The dignitaries hated this because they were terrified that they would say something that would get them arrested. This was called the liquid police.
Brezhnev came into the party drunk before this all started, so he got very drunk as they proceeded through the toasts. In the middle of the party he stood up yelling, I'll show them, I'll show them. He tried to leave the room, but the other Soviet officials jumped up and wrestled him to the floor, in the middle of the state dinner. Of course, the other countries were all Soviet satellites, so this did not matter too much.
A member of the Czechoslovakian delegation got up and asked the Soviets what he wanted. They said he wants to start the war.
Brezhnev took over in 1964 and my friend fled the Soviet Block in 1969 so this happened in that time frame, I believe it happened before the Prague spring in 1968.
These drunken Soviet parties for the highest officials were going on from the time of Stalin to I suppose the fall of the Soviet Union. So this may have been a problem that happened more than once.
Was Gorbachev the designated driver, or designated keeper of the nuclear button? Was that why he was chosen to lead the country? Did he overthrow the system from his position as designated keeper of the button?
Furthermore, it is worrysome that given Kim's vicious murder of underlings that defy him in the slightest there might not be enough brave officials to wrestle him to the floor if he announces that he wants to start a nuclear war.
There are also several other reasons to think that Muslims might be safer than non-Muslims with nuclear weapons.
But holy cities, particularly Mecca and Medina have a significance to Muslims that no city has to the secularist. If nuclear bombs were to wipe out New York or Paris it would be a shock for the secularist. But if it did not go beyond that then life would go on and a hundred years later it would all be history. But if Mecca or Medina were to be destroyed by nuclear bombs there would be an aching hole in the Muslim heart a thousand years from now.
I believe that the Saudi's take their role as protectors of the holy cities very seriously. This maybe why they have kept out of all but the first Arab-Israel war. The first war was the one that established Israel as a nation. The Saudis spent over nine percent of their gross domestic product, GDP on defense in 2016. This gave them the fourth largest military in terms of budget, just behind Russia. Out of the 15 countries with the largest total military budgets, they had by far the largest as a percent of GDP. Yet they have been remarkably peaceful over the last few decades.
The existence of holy cities and other holy sites ties religious people to this world in ways that do not affect secularists.
What is more, it seems likely that Muslims would be discouraged from attacking in a case where the lives of a large portion of their sect are put in danger. A large portion of the world's Shiites live in Iran, devout Shiites would not want a large portion, perhaps a majority of the world's Shiites to die, this would threaten the survival of their sect.
Similarly, a large portion of the world's Salafis are in Saudi Arabia and many of the rest are in neighboring countries. Devout Salafis would not want to see these people slaughtered. This may contribute to Saudi Arabia's conservative use of its military.
Furthermore, religion is not external, like the color of your skin. It is supposed to be the deepest most fundamental part of your personality. Not only is Islam a religion and not a race, but religions are close to being the opposite of races.
There is, however, a problem of Islamophobia and that is what this essay deals with. People who admit the obvious, that Islam does influence behavior, then go on to list every problem that they think of that Islam causes, and ignore all the many cases that Islam prevents problems.
In poor developing countries, we commonly see that AIDS has been a hundred times as prevalent in non-Muslim countries as in neighboring Muslim countries. Writers will go on endlessly about the various factors that influence the prevalence of AIDS without ever noting the Muslim elephant in the room.
Furthermore, America lost tens of thousands of men in both the Korean and the Vietnam war. The Muslims, however, mostly did their own fighting, and very successfully kept communism at bay.
Many people will not miss a chance to condemn Muslims for terrorist attacks but never think to credit Muslims for the areas where they have been better.
We can lie and pretend Muslims are the same but we can not believe it. We can silence those who tell the truth by calling them bigots and threatening their employment. But none of this convinces people and a price is frequently paid on election day. What we can do is take a balanced view that sees both faults and virtues.
If you find this page useful or interesting please link to it on your website or social media. If you find my pages on Ialam interesting link please link to my Islam index page If you find the whole site interesting please link to my site index page or secular homepage.
Tell me what you think. Here is my contact information..
Last updated October 29, 2019