I vaguely remember a catch term for the rule (so far) that Political States with nuclear weapons don't attack each other. If that term exists, what is it?
2007-08-13 11:41:08 · 6 answers · asked by devilishduck 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction
2007-08-13 11:46:32 · answer #1 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Mutually Assured Destruction,after all if Russia had ever attacked us we would have officially removed them from the map. And now that places like Iran are about to become nuclear powers we just have to hope the concept works with crazy people too.
AD
2007-08-13 12:14:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
deliver in the SEALs to exfiltrate our diplomatic staffs. probably set up a humanitarian therapy camp (like a MASH unit) in Sri Lanka. Play host in Geneva and Washington to peace talks. desire that India (the fewer evil and extra civilized us of a) prevails on the tip of the day. probably launch surgical strikes if Pakistan's nuclear weapons replace into susceptible as because of the conflict. If it somewhat is a mopping up operation and we can delay all remaining Pakistani Nuclear weapons, that would desire to be a very clever ingredient to do, so we don't would desire to proceed to tackle a nuclear armed Pakistan it somewhat is on the ingredient of falling into Taliban/Al Qaida hands from daily week to week. If Pakistan ended up de-fanged it could a great deal simplify the genuine-Politik issues that u . s . faces in that area of the international. If we would desire to de-fang Pakistan in a mopping up operation, after an all out nuclear substitute, with an elementary set of surgical strikes, utilising bunker busters, it can be a real looking ingredient to do. can we've the balls to do it? Dunno, consistent with danger. Obama has been incredibly deadly to severe fee objectives in the Afgh/Pak Zone -- he's an earnest Commander in chief -- he needs reliable consequences in the event that they are able to be attained. If the nuclear exchanges are constrained to Kashmir, u . s . could in all probability do little different than help the events seek for peace and look after the wounded. i believe Japan and Australia could help. i think of Russia and China could complicate the subjects and do mischief in the event that they observed the possibility. North Korea could stay out of it.
2016-10-19 11:38:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mutually assured destruction?
2007-08-13 11:46:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I was going to say Nuclear Deterrent
2007-08-13 11:50:51 · answer #5 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Fear of Nuclear Winter?
No, I don't know, but, like you, would like to.
2007-08-13 11:59:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋