Under what cicumstances should "Nukes" be used?

Question

i am referring to Obama's so-called blunder,recently,when

it was reported that he (sort of) answered the above question.

Surely,if we believe in these leader-politicians(if we believe

that they are almost god-like ONCE THEY ARE IN POWER),

then what would you do,when in power,to protect the country,

yourself,and our (complete)family-of-americans(!)

Answer 1

Under NO circumstances.

Answer 2

Well, Obama's peace stance should answer that question for him, but the questioner could easily cause him to hypocriticise by suggesting a cuban missile crisis-esque scenario and asking him whether he would prefer to see his countrymen brutally murdered or an evil dictator easily disposed of. Of corse the questioner is being phenomenally biased. He fails to point out that not all his countrymen would be brutally murdered, and that disposing of this dictator would not be easy and would undoubtedly result in the killing of more innocent civilians from the dictator's country and the conversion of this country into a war-ridden waste land, a massive reduction in tourism and a boycotting of all trade to and from the country. So unless Afghan citizens, say, are inferior to Americans, the best option, in terms of casualties and effects on trade and stock, would be to let the dictator nuke America. But of course nothing can stand between a politician and his legacy, so no President/Dictator/Ruler of America is going to let his countrymen dislike him. It is clearly better for his legacy for him to destroy half the world and keep America's economy steady (in which case he will leave office in much the same way as he left) than it is for him to keep the world steady but ruin America's economy (in which case, second place on the world's richest most powerful list would cause him to be assassinated the day after his resignation, despite not having ruined the world). I guess this goes to show what a distressing moral state the capitalist world is in if we care more about our place on the rich-list that about the soon-to-be wasteland of the middle east.

Answer 3

It depends on how one "uses" a nuclear weapon.

Here is the idea. Let's say North Crazyplace decides they want to drop a nuclear bomb on Muffinland. Muffinland has a full nuclear arsenal. So when North Crazyplace decides to drop the bomb, they know they will get nuked back to the stone age. The people decided they don't want to get wiped out, therefore their is a coup and the government of North Crazyplace is removed.

That is called Mutual Assured Destruction. MAD keeps the peace.

The idea is that the world must know you are willing to drop the bomb, but never actually do it.

Answer 4

They shouldnt EVER be used! Its not worth it.
To protect a country you should go to the source of the problem and sort it out (i.e. trial and kill if thats necessary).. that way you dont kill thousands of innocent people.

Answer 5

Well, when you feel that your family won't even be around to be poisoned by the results, you might think about it. If you feel that it is better for everyone to die, than YOU lose, you might think about it. If you're a complete fruitcake, you might think about it...

Answer 6

nukes shud b dumped into pacific ocean...there is no need to use them...