If every nation had 500 nuclear bombs each, would we have safer world?

Question

This way no one would use them because the world would end. When only a few have the bomb it give them the chance to bully the ones that dont so why not have bombs for everyone right?

Answer 1

The assumption that no one would use these thousands of apocalyptic weapons presumes a certain degree of sanity... and no one who builds an atomic bomb is very sane. Quite the opposite, don't you think?

Anyway, I think there are enough lunatics with bombs already running around to eventually get the job done and there is no need to hasten the end.

Here's a pleasant thought: in order to have any position of authority in the deployment or use of nuclear weapons one must profess the willingness to actually use them if ordered to do so, resulting of course in the destruction of human kind and the other high life forms on the planet along with us.

Such an act would be one of insanity so profound as to defy further definition.

In other words: all of the nuclear weapons in the world are under the control of persons who have declared themselves to be insane.

Answer 2

The only thing that man has changed in warfare is the efficiency in killing others, so the answer lies in who would have the dirtiest bomb or the most powerful. We must also think about some of the world leaders that were either insane or at least unstable and might at a whim begin something that would end it all. Idi Amin of Uganda might have used the bombs on his own people during his attempt to remove one of the races there...perhaps Marcos of the Philippines might have used it to prevent him being ousted. Nixon might have used it against the Washington Post. It would be a far safer world if men were back to throwing stones at each other.

Answer 3

There are over 100 countries, times 500 bombs each, that's
about 50,000 nuclear bombs. Would make for some interesting
sunsets , hey !

Answer 4

Absolutly not! Just like people with guns, countries cannot be trusted not to shoot them.

If every country had a bomb they would have to upkeep them, thats expensive and would create huge burdens on third world countries. Those countries would "loose" (aka sell) their missles/bomb and terrorism would be on a rise.

In addition, many countries are lead by corrupt and evil dictators who have nothing other then power and control on their minds. 500 nuclear bombs would allow one country to basically hold the entire world hostage because 500 nuclear bombs detonated would destroy the world.

Bad idea!

Answer 5

if every country had 500 bombs then some moronic dictator dude would use one of his to blow up some random nation(he would probably choose which with a dart board unless he was really bad at darts)and then he would be like ha man you bedder watch it or i will vaporise 499 other country's ha ha ha,ha and then a elected but not so brilliant celebrity leader of some other country would be like hey whats that all about we should use one of our nuclear weapons to destroy that Cretan and his country but this dudes advisers would say something like no that is inhumane and he gets over it but some other nations leader decides to do just that and blows up that country but the dictator will have already fled and gotten a job at a McDonald's so his country was blown up for nothing that could have been the end of it but no the celebrity elected leader dude would have been like what da.... i totally thought of deteriorating that country first and he would blow up the country that blew up the country he wanted to blow up except this guy isn't vary smart and some how would manege to blow up the moon which would send every body in to freak out mode causing some them to destroy them self's in a sires of civil wars and the others to be well screw this system who's bright idea was it to give every body 500 nuclear bombs Any how????????

Answer 6

What your talking about is called "mutually assured destruction". It was what kept the US and Russia from bombing each other to hell back during the Cold War, but it certainly wouldn't work on a larger scale simply because the more people with bombs that likelier it would be that someone would use them.

Answer 7

Im sure some idiot would decide to let one off and that would end the world anyways. NO, I dont feel it would be a safer world.

Answer 8

Talk about an ignorant question, this one has to take the cake.
If every nation ever had those amounts, there would be no world today.

Answer 9

MAD only works when you don't have crazies in the government. Remember the movie DR. Strange Love. If you hates more than one loves life Mutually Assured Distruction means nothing.

Answer 10

We wouldnt have a world, some countries are run by militant dictators that thirst for the blood of their enemies, and will do anything to have that blood spilt.