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

Pretty much no one is going to use them because they are probably smart enough to realize that would mean the end of the world. So what is the point of having them? And what good is war? (Any war...what does it accomplish? More hatred?)

2007-03-07 03:38:50 · 19 answers · asked by ænima 4 in Politics & Government Politics

19 answers

NO their waiting to use them on alien invaders like the planet
Kuounex.

2007-03-07 03:42:47 · answer #1 · answered by ? 2 · 1 0

Oh please go hug a tree or something with your "we can all live in peace" ideology. Nuclear weapons are a measure of state power and give state great leverage in the multilateral environment. Why do you think the US hasn't gone to N Korea??? Well, cos they are crazy enough to nuke someone! (I admit this is an oversimplified version of things, but I have no desire to write that much)

Anyways, not all countries have nuclear weapons, either cos they can't afford them, or cos other states protest, so the ones that do have them have leverage...who is going to listen to a small unimportant country when it comes to making multilateral decisions, which some countries agree and some disagree with. In those cases a more powerful country can threaten a weaker one and force it into compliance. Now, it is true that there are other ways to do this, but come on...politics is a men's game and men have always been fascinated with power and what is better than WMDs?

And war...well, it is an extension of politics; it is a means to an end...or not...but these days people are just not ready to get along or resolve things peacefully cos it takes too much time and politicians are limited by their term in office. So, things have to happen fast and wars are a way to to do this.

2007-03-07 12:00:43 · answer #2 · answered by Kat ? 4 · 0 1

There are a lot of smart Muslims who blow themselves up and as many others as possible for Allah. If they had all of the West's Nukes the world would have ended on 911.

If Libya did anything right in its history. They gave up Nuclear Weapons. They realized that having them was a pain in the Arss, served no purpose, cost them a lot to maintain, were dangerous to have laying around doing nothing, and kept them out of the major economic markets.

The USA is developing a new cleaner Hydrogen bomb. One of them could sink Austrailia. They have about 7000 of them in storage. Is that a little paranoid overkill?

2007-03-07 11:53:37 · answer #3 · answered by Rja 5 · 0 0

The point of having them is more of a deterrent than anything else.. peace has been achieved because for example the Soviet Union didnt use them against America and vice versa because they new that retaliation was enevitable and there would be no point so yes itsgood to have them. The only problem is Arab countries like Iran who believe they would be doing Gods work by attacking Isreal with Nuclear weapons and would not be afraid to Die from retalitory strikes.. Big serious Nut Case that Iranian leader. Hes one scary dude and we have to watch him very carefully..

2007-03-07 11:41:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

if everybody had nukes we could expect a nuclear war very often. the point of war is to demonstrate that tolerations have limitatons and we are willing to do whatever it takes to make our point. and consider it like an good versus evil thing. wars must be fought for many reasons. there is a saying "The strong survive and the weak perish" the only way to counter evil is to fight evil with evil and the greater will win. wars must be fought, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

2007-03-07 11:50:26 · answer #5 · answered by cyberep 2 · 0 0

Because the Global Religions can't agree on God, some beliefs value life and others value death. I hope that you can see the problem that this represents. Something must be developed that makes nuclear weapons useless. Until then, the religions have no interest in agreeing on God, they're like independent businesses competing against each other, so keep your fingers crossed.

2007-03-07 11:49:06 · answer #6 · answered by liberty11235 6 · 0 0

Who says the world would end? He who is first stands a better chance of survival. There are all kinds of scenarios being worked that would prepare for a strike. And then you figure some of these people who are martyrs, what difference would it make to them? They do not value life here in the now. It's all about the after life.

2007-03-07 11:46:59 · answer #7 · answered by JohnFromNC 7 · 0 0

Do you think that after 9/11 there arent people who are willing to commit suicide for a cause?

There are plenty of crazies all over the world who would like cause the end of the world.

2007-03-07 11:46:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Nukes have become political tools to intimidate other countries, so naturally those countries want to intimidate right back. I'd rather have the leaders who threaten with them duel it out with forks. Can you see Bush and Admajenibubba going at it?

2007-03-07 11:43:57 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

M.A.D.

Mutually Assured Destruction.

It keeps people honest as long as they value life. That's the problem with Iran getting a nuke.

They DON'T value life. Of course, when I say "they" I refer to the Islamic administration. The people of Iran value life, highly.

2007-03-07 11:42:35 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers