do you think we should keep our nuclaer weapons so we can help destroy the world in the event of a nuclear war?
2006-09-17 04:37:15 · 21 answers · asked by iamthemullit 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Deterrence still works. This is what keeps rational nuclear powers from blowing us all to hell. Why do you think we are so freaked out about rogues with nukes? Because deterrence has no effect on individuals or small organizations.
A rational country is thinking how to blow the other country without getting itself blown up to pieces. Mutually assured destruction makes sure that they don't think too hard about it.
Rogues don't have to follow that line of thought. They don't care if they get blown up as long as their enemy gets blown first. The promise of dropping a nuke on them is nothing more than a warranty of achieving marthyrdom, not a punishment.
2006-09-17 04:45:29 · answer #1 · answered by veraperezp 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you need to ask yourself why do we have a nuclear deterent. We are a superpower both in terms of finance and armed forces despite what might appear to be, due to blairs oil war we now find ourselfs in a battle with most of the world and at the moment the only thing stopping certain factions starting a war with us is the thought that we would use nuclear weapons against there home nations. Thought the percived threat is not there with russia out of the picture you must rember that North Korea, Iran and China still have these weapons and are still very hostile to the west and our ideas. For that reason alone we need to be able to say hands of and a nuclear deterent is the only method. BTW despite what peace protesters would say It costs more to keep them out of military bases than it does to keep the deterent.
2006-09-17 04:45:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A nuclear deterrent is so 1980's. I used to be in favour of it but since Auntie Democracy pulled down the iron curtain to give it a good wash it doesn't seem to be of any use. The only threat now would appear to be from the Middle East who don't care whether you have a deterrent or not. They are, after all, going to live in paradise
2006-09-17 04:47:18 · answer #3 · answered by Warlock Fiend 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would prefer that all nukes be destroyed and no more made. That will never happen. Greed and lust for power will always win the hearts and souls of evil human people for the purpose of doing evil.
Russia has 22,000 nukes, they can not afford to guard them. At one time they were taking them apart but that stopped when they went belly up from spending on the war in Afghan stand. In Russia now they can not afford to even pay troops and starvation and poverty is out of control there. Bush has refused to ask Putin to put the nukes under Putins control for security. Bush and Putin had a falling out over the Iraq invasion twice.
2006-09-17 04:46:44 · answer #4 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't matter if we have one or not we will die anyway.
Thanks to ourgov.goneaway.www, we are target No 2
So the weapon drops.
Only 5% die immediately and 85% take anything from 3 days to 3 weeks, and most die from dehydration through burns.
The rest die slowly over one month to two years while the remainder hang around until early cancer gets them.
The land for a 100 times this effected area is contaminated for a few thousand years and life eventually ceases.
Forget the last war, they were fireworks by comparison.
Why do you think we are about the only Western Country without protection?
There will be no where for us Brits to go.
Some of the dual passports might get out if they are lucky, but not us.
Every house and business in Germany has a shelter by law.
2006-09-17 05:38:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
nuclear weapons are only good for one thing.
Destroying them!!
Every country on earth that holds em should be breaking them down.
If ever anyone launched a nuke chances are 5-7 sides would get envolved and blast this entire planet to kingdom come so what's the point?
2006-09-17 04:48:07 · answer #6 · answered by peter gunn 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
MAD Mutually Assured Destruction...the only reason no one launched weapons during the cold war and probably the only deterrant if a country that wanted to destroy us got them. what we should do is develop a missle defense system and make those weapons worthless.
2006-09-17 04:40:41 · answer #7 · answered by Mark D 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Phrase "Nuclear Detterent" should mean to you exactly what it says "Detterent" NOT as weapons to help "Destroy" the World , what is you problem ? are you Nuts ? or have you made your point Badly ?
2006-09-17 05:42:07 · answer #8 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sadly, yes; but not for the reason you state. We have to maintain the appearance of preparedness. If we were seen to disarm unilaterally we would become more vulnerable to nuclear blackmail.
2006-09-17 04:43:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. Peace comes from strength. Talk softly and carry a big stick as Teddy used to say (Roosevelt not Kennedy).
2006-09-17 04:51:28 · answer #10 · answered by DrB 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋