English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-08-09 23:36:03 · 18 answers · asked by jmikey911@sbcglobal.net 2 in Politics & Government Military

18 answers

No.

2006-08-09 23:38:40 · answer #1 · answered by kyeann 5 · 0 0

Yes, we did, the first one and it ended WWII. Nuclear weapons were used in anger so you can say it was a "Nuclear War". In todays enviroment the only way to win a Nuclear war is if you are the only one with Nuclear weapons. The only nation that has the capability to launch an all out Nuclear retaliation that could utterly destroy us is Russia. China would never survive a first strike from a major Nuclear power but has the ability to destroy someone else with a first strike but both Russia and the USA have the ability to destroy China even if they (China) launched first. The Ballistic Missle Submarine fleet of USA carries enough firepower to destroy the world and 1/2 of it is always at sea and undetectable, a massive retaliatory strike capability. All other countries lack the number of weapons to destroy a major power. India and Pakistan could devastate each others countries but Pakistan would fair worse as they have fewer weapons and a smaller population that is concentrated in just a few cities. Neither country has the ability to deliver their weapons any further than bombers can carry them. France and Britian have a limited amount of Tactical Nukes. N.Korea reported could have up to 5 but again only the ability to deliver them a few hundred miles and its not known if they have the ability to arm their missiles with them or not. The same is true with Israel but its not know how many they do have.

So as you can see its not a simple "yes" or "No" question, it depends on who is attacking who, whether or not the other guy has nukes, how many and what ability they have to deliver them.

USA/Russia/China or any combination of the two attacking each other or their allies though......the answer is "No"......everyone loses.

2006-08-10 17:57:12 · answer #2 · answered by Tower of T 2 · 0 1

Let's look at the facts, a nuclear exchange between the strategic powers would vaporize 1 billion people in the first 30 minutes, mostly in the US, Russia, Europe, China and Japan. Another 1.5 billion will die shortly thereafter from radioactive poisoning. The northern hemisphere would be plunged into prolonged agony and barbarism.

Eventually the nuclear winter would spread to the southern hemisphere and kill all plant life, following by the remaining humans above ground. In two weeks to a month, those in underground shelters will face a dead world, with little water and food. Those lucky (or unlucky depending on your point of view) enough to have deep water sources or seeds to plant food that can live on artificial light...might survive...just might....

2006-08-11 03:04:40 · answer #3 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 1 0

Initiation of Nuclear War is nothing but committing suicide.

Then how a nuclear war can be win.

Nuclear weapons are not ordinary, they harm and cause

fatalities to the people of the country which uses it.

2006-08-10 06:43:31 · answer #4 · answered by mushtaqehind 3 · 1 0

The earth never wins a nuclear explosion. It just spreads dissaster in its path to say the least.

2006-08-10 06:43:31 · answer #5 · answered by kahluaknome 1 · 1 0

No one wins in any war except the politicians who try to prove who has a bigger dic_.

2006-08-10 07:51:22 · answer #6 · answered by jarhed 5 · 0 1

The winner also looses. It is the self destructive ego that wins, though ironically, it also suffers untold and irreparable destruction.

2006-08-10 06:42:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Yes. The cockroaches.

2006-08-10 06:41:10 · answer #8 · answered by gadjitfreek 5 · 1 0

Yeah, usually the one that's not dead and has the least amount of nuclear fall-out.

2006-08-10 06:39:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Yeah, sure! the one who manages to survive away after both fighting parts erase each other off the map... far enough not to be (too) affected by nasty side-effects of other's fighting...

2006-08-10 06:40:49 · answer #10 · answered by Guillermo G 1 · 0 1

Dr. Evil wins.

2006-08-10 06:41:12 · answer #11 · answered by I77 2 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers