If no one has ICBM and SLBM , most world tension and money for Military will save.
2007-05-10 00:22:31 · 7 answers · asked by nmkmathan 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Unfortunately the Pandora's Box has been opened and there's no return to the fairy land days of yesterday.
2007-05-11 22:27:40 · answer #1 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your assumption would be correct if all the world leaders were sensible, intelligent persons. Sadly the world does not work like that.
Some people will sacrifice everything- including their own countrymen- in order to achieve some imagined aim- if you need examples look up the leaders of North Korea and Iran.
However, these same people will not risk their own lives - if you need examples of that, just consider that none of the "radical" mullahs ever volunteered as a suicide bomber
Which is why we need ICBM's, SLBM's and anti-missle defences.
Yes, it costs a lot of money. And also it stops us from developing our planet. Given the choice, I'd rather be building starships.
2007-05-10 00:43:15 · answer #2 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Deterrence.
But, I don't think the question is why we need them, I think it's clear that at this point in history since others have the power to destroy us we need to have the power to respond thus keeping them in check. The real question is, why do we need so many?
We have about 1600 warheads. We have 500 missiles not including submarine based systems. The question is, could we reduce those numbers further (we're about half where we were in the early 80s) without risking our deterrent effect? I tend to think so. We could cut that number in half again, and still be strong enough to keep any declared nuclear power in check. Most likely, our arsenal doesn't deter any new power any more or less if it's 1600 or 2 warheads. If it's going to work to stop Iran or North Korea, a few will work fine, if it's not, having thousands doesn't work any better. It probably doesn't deter terrorists at all. So, we should spend our money better. Still, it's not easy to dismantle and store the material, and dismantle the military bases and infrastructure that support them. The politics of base closures probably has more to do with why we haven't reduced our arsenal than military readiness.
2007-05-10 00:46:40 · answer #3 · answered by Robert L 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The world is illogical and does not work together so we have to protect ourselves from Idiots, terrorist, Madmen and blackmailing fools.
Please Support our Troops and Civilian Contractors Unconditionally
2007-05-10 01:08:36 · answer #4 · answered by ฉันรักเบ้า 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
people still have ICBMs, iran has short rang, isreal (sp) has long range, england, fra nce, Russia, N. korea is working on them. but basicly we need them as a defense tool. if you have a sword are you going to try to fight someone with a sword and risk being cut?
2007-05-10 00:55:33 · answer #5 · answered by doyal797357 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sure.
Then any thug with one bomb can blackmail the world.
Anymore brilliant ideas, Captain Craptacular?
2007-05-10 00:26:09 · answer #6 · answered by A Balrog of Morgoth 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
do you live in a cave or do you really not understand that the ability to kill the other guy no matter how far away he is keeps us alive?
2007-05-10 00:25:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋