Should America set up a more advanced offensive nuclear system?

Question

Yes, America does have an advanced system, but should the military resort to nuclear war more often, or is it something to be avoided at all costs?

Answer 1

If by "more advanced" you mean that ABM BS, that stuff is not "more advanced."

Whatever resources you put into a defense like that, it can be overcome with less effort, and will be.

The use of nuclear weapons carries the risk of like retaliation, of the destruction of your greatest cities, of the deaths of millions of your citizens, of the reduction of your nation to permanent second or third world status. This remains the bottom line.

Nuclear weapons should be resorted to only when the danger faced is of such an order as to make such risk worthwhile.

There is no such risk to the US today. It is hard to imagine any such risk to the US rising up at any time in the future.

There are some ambitious fools out there with bright ideas about pulling clever stunts with nuclear weapons.
I don't think they should be allowed near the things.

Answer 2

No. A more defensive system would be great (Star Wars style). Make the enemy (whomever would try to fill that role) face the possibility that they could end up not hurting us hardly at all while suffering complete defeat at our hands.

Some of them wouldn't mind being destroyed if they could take us down.

During WWII Japan tried one method of attacking us that DID reach our mainland; they used balloon bombs (no kidding)!

These bombs were meant to float over the mainland and drop, nearly impossible to stop.

It was a disaster for the Japanese, as not one worked or hurt anyone. It was as if the bombs just disappeared. Not a news story, not sign.

In truth, they were lousy weapons. However, the news services all cooperated and NO ONE mentioned it. Made it a total loss for Japan in this attempt. The public didn't know, didn't react.

However, one family did lose members to it during a picnic in which some of the members found one of the unexploded bombs and died. Trade off? Worth it? I would have kept it secret. How about you? Sometimes silence is the best policy. I hope that, whatever our government does, it DOESN'T feel the need to spill the details just because a few people who thing "they have a right to know national secrets" will get upset and offended.

Answer 3

No. Nuclear weapons should be used for defense.

In any case, what do you mean by more advanced? The President gives the word and nukes from subs, land based ICBMS and bombers start flying. Sounds advanced enough for me.

ADDITIONAL COMMENT: I do not believe nukes should be used for any reason other than to repel invaders and strike back at countries attacking us or important allies. They should never be used offensively.

Answer 4

I think they should just be used in a defense situation when nothing can be done and every other solution has been exhausted. If we blow up everything there will be nothing left of the Earth. We destroy our selves when we use nuclear weapons.

Answer 5

nuclear detterence illusion

Answer 6

nuclear proliferation has never been the answer.