Should the United States start a nuclear showdown instead of waiting for a nuclear attack from the “axis of evil” which includes Iran, Iraq, North Korea and also China, Libya and Syria?
2006-09-20 15:22:22 · 15 answers · asked by Eric 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
It is not the brightest idea I have ever heard.
2006-09-20 15:51:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
You can't have a nuclear policy like the way you play video games. Real people die, billions of them. The US has over 70,000 nuclear weapons. So does Russia, China, France, England and so on. And if that happens, what ever few survivor left probably would wish they had died as well.
We have close to 3,000 soldiers die in Iraq and it is painful. The second world war...55 million people died. For a nuclear war, a hundred times that...5 or 6 billion.
2006-09-20 22:48:24 · answer #2 · answered by robert S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because you wouldn't want to provoke all of those countries labelled as the "axis of evil". No one can be sure exactly how strong those countries are. How can the Americans be sure that they are not running a great risk? Besides, there's no point attacking for no reason. The so-called "axis of evil" may not even be planning on attacking the United States, so why make the first move?
2006-09-20 22:40:37 · answer #3 · answered by WaterfallOfDestiny 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What would constitute your "nuclear showdown?" The USA telling those countries, "Dismantle your nuclear processing facilities by date X or else we'll nuke your capital cities?"
In that case, no, I do not believe we should engage in that sort of threatening behavior. If terrorism is the threat or use of force against civilians to gain political influence, then that'd be terrorism. And I don't want the USA to do that.
2006-09-20 22:29:26 · answer #4 · answered by Charles D 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The last nuclear showdown came hours away from Washington DC being nuked by Russia. Do you really want to enter into that senario again?
Learn your history.
2006-09-20 22:25:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
2 points
2006-09-22 11:20:51 · answer #6 · answered by YR1947 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Remember when the last "nuclear showdown" came hours away from WDC being nuked by Russia? yeah. I don't think we want that again.
2006-09-20 22:33:33 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
nobody is going to attack us ... thats a crock of media excremant .... i'll tell you what is going to happen though ... people are being conditioned to think that we now have "safe" tactical "mini-nukes" and i guarantee the US is hell-bent on its way to using them in regular theatre warfare ... you will see it in the next few years im betting ... showdown? no ... first use as per preemption doctrine? yes .... unless we can root out the evil madmen from capitol hill there going to unleash hell on this planet before long ... this is my personal opinion.
2006-09-20 22:34:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, no one wins in a nuclear war. I'm so not anxious for Armageddon to start.
2006-09-20 22:30:33 · answer #9 · answered by Werecatwoman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ya right usa cannot even defeat 1 country,then a coilation harhar.
2006-09-20 23:11:10 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah. I think we should blow this planet completely apart. That way the b*st*rds who I work for will die and go to Hell.
2006-09-20 22:31:13 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋