La invencion de la bomba atomica ha hecho del mundo un lugar mas pacifico ?

does the spread of nuclear weapons make the world safer or more dangerous? most people usually have an instinctive reply to this question: of course, it makes things more dangerous. how could it not? it might seem surprising, therefore, that not all nuclear analysts agree, and the debate remains unresolved. like so many of the issues relating to nuclear weapons, the debate is built largely on speculation and ambiguous historical experience. nuclear weapons remain attractive to insecure or ambitious states. in regional rivalries such as the subcontinent, east asia, and the middle east, the bomb still has influence. whatever else one has to say – and presumably not much has been left unsaid about the nuclear strategy of the past six decades – nuclear status still imparts extraordinary prestige and power. the nine current members of the nuclear weapon club still possess about 27,000 operational nuclear weapons of various types between them. at least another 15 countries have on hand enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon.

since 1945, many influential voices have expressed alarm that the spread of nuclear weapons will inevitably lead to world destruction. so far, that prediction has not been proved right. but is that because of effective efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, or, to borrow a phrase from former secretary of state dean acheson, after the cuban missile crisis, just ‘plain dumb luck’?

the outcome of 1970 oil crisis in united states was that, they began to search ways on how to reduce oil.

in 1970 was a period when there were energy and oil crisis. those who were major centers for industrialization were forced to keep way from supplying of petroleum.

some of the result of this crisis was economic growth became stagnant because prices of oil surged.

due to the increased prices some countries like mexico and norway benefited.