i'm having a debating class next week and i'm the pro side. i need answers with solid argument and it would be great if there's a factual example as well. thx
2007-04-25 04:39:18 · 7 answers · asked by pink-ology 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Nuclear weapons are more of a deterrent against a "first strike" from another country. The aggressor doesn't want to be annihilated himself. Nukes themselves pose no advantage because anyone who uses them will likely be condemned by the rest of the world or retaliated against. Terrorists organizations with nukes pose the biggest threat because they officially claim no specific home state and are not afraid of retaliation on a nuclear level by a much larger force since the mass murder of humans is their intention anyway.
2007-04-25 04:48:13 · answer #1 · answered by Land Warrior 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It can be a deterrent from an attack becuase if a country possessed nukes they can retaliate. It would just be detente because country that has nukes can show there will be mutually assured destruction.
2007-04-25 04:43:10 · answer #2 · answered by thequeenreigns 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ulitimate deterrent..there is slight problem call Mutual Assured Destruction.(MAD) and falling in the wrong hands in
Middle East.
2007-04-25 04:56:31 · answer #3 · answered by sparkles 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Other countries will think twice about antagonizing a country that has the capability to use a nuclear bomb on them.
2007-04-25 04:45:33 · answer #4 · answered by slykitty62 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Having it is a deterrent to those who consider aggression
2007-04-25 04:52:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well in these times you really have to for a precaution hopefully you wouldn't need to use them but its good to put it out there you have them at your disposal.
2007-04-25 05:25:57 · answer #6 · answered by Joy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
More military power and more energy to use for people.
2007-04-25 04:43:12 · answer #7 · answered by Teufelhunden 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋