Do nations possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons because of fear of attack from some other nation, or is it mainly because without them the stronger cannot otherwise exploit the weaker?
2006-07-31 14:06:58 · 9 answers · asked by trusolja_dareal23 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
It is a combination of both.Take the U.S. for example. We stockpiled nuclear weapons for fear of the Soviets who were doing the same but we also had to show our power to the world by competing with them.
2006-07-31 14:11:56 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's the bully's mentality: my gun is bigger than yours, so don't mess with me!
By the way, it's an untenable and indefensible line of reasoning. Even if our nation successfully defended itself from nuclear attack by wiping out its attacker, what happens afterwards? Did the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings prevent other nations from possessing or developing a nuclear arsenal? No. Did these terrible attacks prevent future wars or genocides or new dictators? No. Will history repeat itself? Definitely, and sadly, yes.
2006-07-31 22:06:12 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the need to posses nucleur weapons is for social security and yes, it prevents the strong countries from exploiting the weak ones. Nucleur weapons, although we don't admit it, provide the country with the assurance that if they are attacked then at least they have a means to defend themselves. It is what I call 'phychological security' and it doesn't mean that the country will actuall use the weapons!
2006-07-31 21:23:02 · answer #3 · answered by surani_ud 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This all came to be because of Japan and Hitler. It is called the "Manhattan project". Human behavior has brought us this "end of the world" bomb. It was needed then, and it will soon be needed again! This time it will be used in a worldwide scale, which could mean the end of this civilization as we know it. Those that are left alive, will continue with life and it will take more than a 1,000 years to come back to the future.
2006-07-31 21:15:53 · answer #4 · answered by ricardocoav 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some nations possess them to keep others from using them against them. Some unstable dictators want them to feel important when they are able to hurt large numbers of people quickly and easily.
2006-07-31 21:12:32 · answer #5 · answered by rehabob 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's called "keeping up with the Jones's"..... you don't want one power to have more power over yours.
Kind of that you hit me, I'll hit you attitude.
2006-07-31 21:13:20 · answer #6 · answered by Lindy357 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both.
2006-07-31 21:11:31 · answer #7 · answered by normobrian 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the latter
2006-07-31 21:11:52 · answer #8 · answered by DodgerBlueFan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think you said it...thank you
2006-07-31 21:11:23 · answer #9 · answered by rubi 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋