Why U.S.A. is using atomic shield as political move?

Question

Two people aiming at each other with guns... No one dares to shoot... That was till the day when need of protection grow up into posible improvement... So now U.S.A. is going to make situation looks this way: Two people aiming at each other... one in kevlar... second without. The first put trust in his power... the second is more affraid and more dangerous from fear... Do they really want this?... Or they will finally understand that world peace means all or nothing?... Why they dont consider protecting everyone to end this social nightmare they helped to develop by creating atomic weaponary? And you dare to call for God?!... If not His protection... ... Better see clearly before next day will come... Death is no so cruel than what I know... Bear with your creation well, because... power can turn against you when you use it wrongly...

You will understand it slowly or... not...

Answer 1

Your question puzzles me. You seem to take as a fact that the United States is a super villain with only a self serving purpose. Nothing can be so far from the truth. No one in the United States, especially the president will ever consider using atomic weapons or even threatening to use them. Except of course if attacked nuclear weapons. They were used once, against Japan. That was something that most of us are sorry that it ever happened.
By the way, George W. Bush has only limited power There are 100 U.S. Senators that have a say in what he does, and 435 members of the House of Representatives.
Why are we in Iraq? Initially it was reported by
the U.N., by Russia, our own C.I.A., an other very credible sources tat Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He did use WMD (mustard gas) to murder thousands of his own people, the Kurds. The same with the war with Iran. He also had a history of invading Kwait. The question was, who needed a modern day Hitler? The USA did drive him out and win the war.
That is until local area interests started financing terrist camps to drive the coallition forces out for a total takeover of Iraq. There is no doubt that a hostile group is pourng billions of dollars into the take over of Iraq.. It may not totally be Syria, or even Iran. They simply don't have the huge resources. The finances must come from some local "friendly" backer playing both sides.

What is there to gain?

If Iraq falls, so will Kwait. The oil of Iraq, Iran, Kwait, from the outset, and maybe even Saudi Arabia will be in the hands of one group. That being said, what will happen to our (word wide) air industry, fuel for cas, power for industry which includes railroads, home heating, ships etc, etc, etc.?
In the United States, there is a big push in buying hybred cars, aware of fuel comsumption, and other sources of energy. There are some low level announcements on energy and consumption from Washington to avoid panic. The problem is real and President Bush is locked into a very difficult the problem. I am quite certain that where ever you are, it will reach you in time if things go bad in Iraq. Oil is available from other areas. It will cost just what the traffic bears. Massive inflation is very likely to set in. So far the cost to the tax payers in the coallition runs in the hundreds of billions, of dollars.

Answer 2

Name one world conflict that's been solved permanently by a group hug? You're saying if liberals were in charge the US wouldn't have the ability to deter attacks? Fortunately, deterrence has been effective for the last 60 years preventing the use of these weapons and protecting free societies.

Definitely proof of were liberals stand when it comes to national security...

Answer 3

It replace right into a mix of might aspects. first and maximum suitable, we'd have loved to end the conflict without invading the domicile islands of Japan. The envisioned death toll for the united states in an invasion replace into around 500,000 adult males. the eastern might lose hundreds of thousands. It replace into merely approximately seen greater humane to drop the bomb, a minimum of much less wasteful. A 2nd reason replace into becoming soviet hostility between the U.S. and the different allies. the united states needed for example it prowess if it replace into going to steer the international in a clean era of peace. 0.33, Truman rather did no longer be attentive to the linked fee of the A-Bomb. He merely believed it replace into one "huge " bomb. An Edit for a number of the remark so some distance - the eastern weren't coming alongside, they have been dropping, merely no longer rapid adequate. additionally, there replace into no way the eastern could have been in a position to attack the united states mainland after halfway, they did no longer have the gas, the ships, or the weapons to realize this. ultimately, the Germans had lengthy placed their Atomic Bomb on the lower back burner, rather they went for V2 rockets. additionally, in case you have your dates maximum superb - The Germans surrendered lengthy till now the individuals dropped the bomb.

Answer 4

The country with the biggest guns and the best armour dictates to the person without.
That's life. Letting another country get to that stage is foolish, you saw what nearly happened during the cold war, and that was 2 "civilised" countries.

Answer 5

Somebody was going to end WW2 with a nuc. You would've preferred Germany, Japan ?

And once invented you can't uninvent. So the choice is Nuclear deterrent or enslavement. Maybe in the distant future reality will be different. But think about Nazis with Nucs!

If God had a hand in this, (he/she) made (his/her) choice.

Answer 6

It worked for the Cold War, so people think it will work again.

What people don't seem to realize is that instead of facing one big bear of an opponent, we're facing a thousand hornets.

Answer 7

Why shouldn't we take measures to protect our people?

If you think we should trust other nations - maybe you should give us some reasons why they are so trustworthy.

Answer 8

i am an american and i want to tell you that we in the usa don't want our missle shield to be a political weapon what we want is to be able to defend us and our allies against a nuclear attack

Answer 9

Americans don't view it as a political move. USA prefers to be safe than sorry.

Answer 10

Ban the Bomb.

Been there done that since the sixties any new ideas?