Is nuclear war inevitable?

Question

and to the people who say it is, why do you whine over the US bullying countries around who are trying to get nukes? shouldnt we neutralize them to make sure we arent the ones who get hurt?

Answer 1

I don't think inevitable is the right word.

Because humans exist in a world where resources are unevenly distributed, there will always be competition and aggression, hence we will always have some form of "warfare." If a country uses nukes, the choice will probably be a rash one because most developed nations with nuclear capability are well aware of the ramifications that come with using nuclear weapons.

Fortunately, the massive stockpiles of cold-war era weapons have been dismantled, so the likely hood of full-scale nuclear annihilation has been greatly reduced. Of course, we still have more than enough weapons to do great damage, but the major nuclear powers in the world today are far more stable and responsible than thirty years ago. Another consideration is that with our rapidly developing global economy, borders have become much less important. Resources are more accessible now than they were thirty years ago.

The major problems come from unstable, dictatorial players like Iran and North Korea because the governments in those countries are oppressing the people in order to maintain power, and the rest of the world finds this offensive. As those countries develop nuclear weapons to assure our "non-interference", tensions increase, and the likely hood of a pre-emptive strike by one of these countries becomes a frighteningly real possibility.

It's unlikely that any of these countries would be able to build a stockpile of nuclear weapons, or delivery systems to threaten the US, so it would probably be an isolated attack against one of their neighbors. Were this to happen, you can almost guarantee an immediate united global military response to remove the aggressor for the good of the planet.

You could imagine that such a scenario would entail massive, round-the-clock conventional air strikes to destroy any and all offensive military infrastructure, and communications. Once this was done, a traditional ground invasion would follow with a significant, multi-national invasion force that would quickly overwhelm their defenses. Once the govt. leaders were captured or killed, it's likely the populous would capitulate quickly.

Since we've never had a nuclear upstart launch an attack, it's likely that support for such an invasion would be overwhelming. Most sane countries do not want psychos running around with nuclear weapons.

Meantime, yes, we need to do as much as possible to make sure these countries do not continue to advance their offensive nuclear technologies. In this scenario, the ends (peace) do justify the means. Any means.

Answer 2

It's probable but not inevitable. To say its inevitable is like saying global suicide is around the corner. While i agree that extinction level events are more than fairy tales, considering the planet killing asteroids, global warming, super volcanoes, or pandemic viruses, the thought that nuclear war is inevitable is madness.

In my opinion, the most likely scenario for a nuclear exchange will come from a Russian launch based on their aging early warning systems thinking that NATO or the US launched against them, when in fact it was a computer foul up....

Answer 3

Maybe if terrorists were to get their hands on one and were to use it against the US. Then nuclear war would probably be inevitable but as long as terrorists don't attack the US with a nuclear weapon, nuclear war is not inevitable because even a nuclear Iran/North Korea knows that it would be wiped off the face of the earth by the US if they did use them against the US or one of their allies.

Answer 4

Wow - that is one potent question.

I really want to answer, "no," but I'm kind of a history buff, and, try as I might, I can't think of any weapon that's ever been developed that wasn't used in a hostile way at one time or another.

The atom bomb was used - hopefully for the last time, to bring an end to WWII. It was hoped that the "bomb" would bring an end to all wars - mutual annihilation, and all that - but, obviously, that didn't happen.

I have no problem with the United States doing all it reasonably can to keep nuclear weapons out of the countries that have a definite propensity for war - or a well known hatred and history of violence toward its neighboring countries.

It's called, "self-preservation."

Answer 5

I think that nuclear war is highly probable within the next 50 years. I also think that the USA is one of the few nations that is being properly aggressive in trying to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately Russia and China aren't being very cooperative, we could really use their help.

Answer 6

"I sure hope it's inevitable! It won't be, however, if we allow madmen and terrorists to obtain nuclear weapons!"
According to answers.com, inevitable means:
Impossible to avoid or prevent.

I think you're thinking of avoidable?

__________________________________________________

Now to answer your question. I think it's not inevitable. If we can form a trustable alliance with the higher countries of this world (countries with nukes, basically), we'll be OK. None of these countries want other countries to have nukes, so we'd eliminate countries like NK together.

Answer 7

I think it is. It'll probably start out small...well, I actually don't know. But I work on a nuclear-capable fighter jet, and there are some major changes happening at my base. I think things are going to happen....when, couldn't tell you even if I knew

Answer 8

I choose to believe it will NOT be inevitable.

Answer 9

Theres a place called heaven and a place called hell, a place called prison and a place called Jail. Dads probably goin to all of them except one.

Answer 10

I sure hope it's inevitable! It won't be, however, if we allow madmen and terrorists to obtain nuclear weapons!