Is it your actual opinion that nuclear war between the US and USSR would have destroyed the world (or human civilization), or was that just a figure of speech? The distinction seems worth upholding.
The answer here falls to semantics. 1. Yes, it’s probably just meant as a figure of speech; in which case, it’s acceptable. 2. He said “world” and not “planet”. “World” can be defined as a sphere of human influence; in which case, it’s also accurate. So, yes, he kept the world from being destroyed.
He didn’t say “Wipe out humanity”, he said “destroy the world”. I’d say a global thermonuclear conflict would do enough damage to call the world destroyed, even if humanity wasn’t utterly and irrevocably annihilated.
If I smashed your phone against a wall, you’d say I’d destroyed it, even if it could in principle be repaired.
Is it your actual opinion that nuclear war between the US and USSR would have destroyed the world (or human civilization), or was that just a figure of speech? The distinction seems worth upholding.
The answer here falls to semantics. 1. Yes, it’s probably just meant as a figure of speech; in which case, it’s acceptable. 2. He said “world” and not “planet”. “World” can be defined as a sphere of human influence; in which case, it’s also accurate. So, yes, he kept the world from being destroyed.
I’d say its fact. Considering we employed the Mutual Assured Destruction Doctrine during the Cold War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
This is actually not that relevant. The only question is whether humanity could survive a Nuclear Winter…
He didn’t say “Wipe out humanity”, he said “destroy the world”. I’d say a global thermonuclear conflict would do enough damage to call the world destroyed, even if humanity wasn’t utterly and irrevocably annihilated.
If I smashed your phone against a wall, you’d say I’d destroyed it, even if it could in principle be repaired.