2006-07-17 05:57:44 · 25 answers · asked by mistyc 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
If any country other than one that is our ally fires a nuke at us, the chances are pretty good that we'll fire one back. I'm fairly certain that the only reason we haven't had one fired at us yet is because the other countries know that their own destruction will be imminent. It was the same way during the cold war. We had nukes, and Russia had nukes, but we never ended up using them because of the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Also, if anyone fires a nuke at one of our allies, we'll probably retaliate with one of our own.
2006-07-17 07:39:39 · answer #1 · answered by j.f. 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
To blow up potentially hazardous asteroids. I know it sounds like something out of Armageddon, but I saw a documentary on the Science Channel and a few years ago the US did launch a missile of some sort at an asteroid that had potential of hitting the earth. I do not agree with the use of nuclear weapons in settling conflicts. It's too deadly, devastating, and the effects are felt for far too long.
2006-07-17 06:05:10 · answer #2 · answered by Kitti 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Never. If we did then:
1. We would severely damage and pollute our world, which we all live in. The fallout would not be confined to where ever we bombed. (Which means we shouldn't be testing them either).
2. Unless we got everyone with a nuclear arsenal at once, we would more than likely be attacked with the same thing.
3. The rest of the world would hate us more than they already do, and that would probably put us in WWIII.
2006-07-17 06:04:20 · answer #3 · answered by Icy U 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a tough question.
1. My impulse is to say only in the event that a country has launched or is about to launch a nuclear missile at us.
BUT
2. Since we know that would end in the destruction of the world, do we respond or not is the question. Do we throw ourselves on our swords for the survival of the human race or do we launch one back knowing that we have just participated in the end of all mankind?
2006-07-17 06:00:14 · answer #4 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
With tongue in cheek and a little bit of levity, the U.S. should use the nuclear arsenal only if the Republicans lose the elections in November. They could use the adage " If we can't have, nobody can have it"
2006-07-17 06:22:10 · answer #5 · answered by gshewman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The USA should not use its nuclear arsenal at all. If it does, it will probably spark world war III or probably be used on innocent civilians at Mecca.
2006-07-17 05:59:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most people do not realize how many times more powerful hydrogen bombs are than the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They cause so much destruction that using them would be like putting a gun to your own head. These weapons should never be used.
2006-07-17 07:43:05 · answer #7 · answered by rollo_tomassi423 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Never. And neither should any other country.
That is like setting my neighbors house on fire! and I live next door.
Good to deter. I rather starve the enemy to death than with Nukes.
2006-07-17 06:22:44 · answer #8 · answered by tmcs1959 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a retaliatory strike or when the government will be totally disposed of by a foreign entity.
2006-07-17 06:44:49 · answer #9 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we did then other countries would destroying Earth.
The U.S is supposed to be the peacemaker of the world not the one that will cause world destruction.That would be really stuiped.
2006-07-17 16:09:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋