Not really, except as a deterrence. However, our largest threat today is from terrorists that usually have no home ties and are not deterred from the threat of nuclear attack.
2006-10-04 05:19:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, empirically speaking, they certainly do help. Just look at the positions in the world today of President Bush's famous "Axis of Evil".
Iraq: No nuclear weapons, invaded, government deposed, dictator on trial.
North Korea: Claims nuclear weapons, in negotiations with the US, no invasion, dictator still in power.
Nuclear weapons equalize the playing field for countries that cannot compete militarilty in either quality or quantity with the more developed nations of the world. Even if the US military could trounce the North Korean military without losing a single person, the presence of nuclear weapons fundamentally alters the equation. Nuclear weapons provide a near guaranty of inflicting some losses, even against a vastly superior foe. The ability to incur damage on your enemy is what stops them from wiping the floor with you whenever they want. For countries that can't defend themselves conventionally, yes, they're necessary.
2006-10-04 05:26:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by Mark 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
The answer to this question is both Yes and No. Geographical location and the overall strategic scenario dictates. eg A country like US (to be a super power it does), Australia, Japan actually do not need . Country like India or Israel or South Korea and other land locked countries surrounded by hostile neighbours require it as a deterrent. But there are safe guards like No first use policies, Defined control of the use especially in democracies. The threat actually is from Terrorist and countries ruled by dictators where the person in control is unpredictable and his or the organisations decisions and actions are suspect.
2006-10-06 20:57:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by Rahul 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
It varies from country to country. Some like Iran see nukes as a way to force others to treat them with respect no matter what the other countries personal feelings toward Iran might be. Others might see it simply as a deterrent that Will make bigger more powerful countries think twice before attacking them. Others like Japan and South Korea put there stock in having a very advanced and capable military to keep potential enemies in line. It should be noted that these weapons are very good at dealing with other countries terrorist and insurgents however are not deterred by nukes unless you plan on using them to destroy something very valuable to them like Mecca.
2006-10-04 06:17:56
·
answer #4
·
answered by brian L 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nuclear weapons are necessary only for the defense of "Worlds." Individual countries seem to come up with bigger, better, badder ways to destroy the innocence of life - the children of tomorrow. It seem MAN as a species, is destined to destroy the same world on which they live. The greatest problem is that Man does not inhabit this planet alone. Though weapons of such destructive natures are not needed, humans tend to destroy ALL!!
My heart goes out to all the innocent children that die Wars perpetrated around the world. If children are Humans greatest gift to themselves; why do they destroy them so readily?
2006-10-04 05:31:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by Insight 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
They are not necessary, but no two countries with nuclear weapons have ever engaged in physical warfare. Then again, the same thing can be said about countries that have a McDonalds.....
2006-10-04 05:27:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Arguing that nuclear weapons are defensive is like saying that I should walk around pointing a gun at everyone to defend myself just in case someone is thinking about attacking me. Nuclear weapons should be universally banned.
2006-10-04 05:23:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by Larry 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
i think nuclear weapons are not at all a necessity. it ofcourse leads only to destruction.I hope the world nations open their eyes and stop the race of supremacy over the other which leads to the other producing it.if peace is advocated and all the nations abide by it infact the defence spending can be minimised by all the nations and spend thse same towards upliftment and better standards of humanity.
2006-10-04 18:54:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by jai k 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nuclear weapons have no defensive properties. Nuclear weapons are used as an offensive tool, or a retaliation weapon. The only defensive qualities they have are to create fear in the minds of our enemies, if our enemies know we have them and are willing to use them, then they make think twice about attacking us.
2006-10-04 05:26:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by The Answer Man 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Can you tell me.. could you defence yourself from the death? Death is inevitable and only with the will of God and no human. Nuclear is nothing to defend any country. Tell me If major earthquake (7.6) happened where the nuke situated. Whole land will be destroyed.
Only peace and love can defend any country from another.
20 years back , it was atom bomb, now nuclear then another. Tell all the leaders of the world to take the prayer from people to defend themselves from hell fire (when he or she die) and God.
Nuke is bull **** , it is to dismantle peace not to restore defence or peace.
2006-10-04 09:57:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by Zakir 2
·
0⤊
0⤋