text: ,ri',res the proponents of deterrence great dlfficult-/. fn order to crain that it isFossibfe to continue, forever, to live with nuclear rrreapons r the tralance nust bemainta"ined at all tines irrespective of any technologica,I chaffenges that rnaypresent thenselves as a result cf the ar[]s race. In addition, there must be noacci.l.,nts oI a lruman or techr:ical nature" vhich is an imlossible requircrnent assho'n by the various incidents of fafse alarms and conputer rnalfunctioning thate're reported from time tc ti-me. sooner or later one of these incidents rnay giverise to a real accident r.rith u-ntold consequences. For these and other reasors j_t isnot possible to offer a blanket guarantee of eternal stabirity of the deterrencebafs.nce and no one should be permitted to issue calnjng decl-arations to this effect.The consequences of being rrrong aae too great. The chances of being vrong are tooobvious. This is an important reason uhy the Final Document of the Tenth speciarSession of tle General Assembly, adopted by consensus on 30 June l9?8, stateacate.orieaLly, in oaragraph 13, that "Enduring internaLional peace and securitycannot be buil-t on the accumulation of weaponry ty nilitary alliances nor bestrstaineil by a precarious balance of deterr.ence or doctrines of strateBrc 5r' peri ority. " )r97. cven if the bafance of deterrence \,ras an entirely stable phenorrrenon, there arestrong rnoral and nolitical argr,rments against a continued reliance on this balance,It is inadmissible that the 'llrosrect of the annihilation of human civilizatlon isused by some states to promote their security. The future of rnankind is then nadehostage to the perceived securitl' of a fev nuclear-weanon states and most notablythat of the tr^'o super-Povers, rt is furthevmore not acceptabre to establish, f,:rthe indefinite future, a l^rorld systen of nuclear-veapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states. This very systen carries vithin it the seed of nuclear-wea-pcnproliferaticn. In the long run, therefore, it is a system that contains theorigins cf its ovn destruction.
analysis: The text appears to be a philosophical and moral discussion about the implications of nuclear deterrence and the balance of power between nations. It touches on the themes of international security, the threat of nuclear war, and the morality of relying on the threat of annihilation to maintain peace. The text also references international agreements and the need for a more sustainable approach to international relations.