Is there ever an instance where the USA should use WMD, nuclear or otherwise?

Question

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnnfN.aPQyt9sT_ko02rZ0_sy6IX?qid=20070819171956AAn67yN&show=7#profile-info-ef931cca1f9e44db5aa00adecc4b83b2aa

Sorry for the similar question to the one I just posted, but I'm looking for more responses, detailed ones would be good.

Under what circumstance would deploying a weapon of mass destruction against a civilian target benefit the United States of America? Even if we were attacked with nukes, what would striking innocent people accomplish?

I'm hawkish on all other military matters, but if nukes and other weapons are nothing more than a bluff, why don't we dismantle them? And under what insane circumstance would you have to come up with for there to be a precedent for using them?

I'd spend money on preventing nuclear strikes, missile defense shield, border security, etc. I'd never deploy WMD under any circumstance.

If you disagree, please state why, and please do it with civility.

Answer 1

I don't think there is ever a time when WMD should be deployed. Despite down scaling the level of wmd world wide we still have enough to destroy the world many times over. WMD are not good for so called targetted killing as it will kill many inocent civilians in its wake. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both testamount to that and they were relatively small primitive wmd. Also, as soon as one country uses one, it is highly likely that weapons will be launched in response. And that really is end of the world stuff.

Answer 2

In self defense. If we were desperate or if someone was using WMD against us, I think it would be okay to use WMD. At this point, we are a superpower. But Russia is still out there and, while they aren't as belligerents as they were in the past, that can change. Moreover, China becoming a superpower is on the horizon. What will happen in 10 or 20 years? I don't know. It's better to be safe than sorry. Moreover, other smaller, less powerful countries are even more belligerent than the Soviets were in the past. We need to carry a big stick or else they will see a lack of WMD as a weakness. Whether we like it or not, the US has a big effect on the rest of the world and some will use whatever means necessary to whipe us off the face of the Earth.

Answer 3

Nukes at the time and even today kept the peace. Mutually Assured Destruction was and still is the cornerstone (ironically) of keeping the peace amongst the worlds major powers. If we launched a nuclear strike, the world loses. As powerful as these nukes are today, the nuclear contamination would kill millions more worldwide. I would say WMD if they were to be deployed would be if they were used against us first. They would only be a retaliatory weapon if they were to be used at all. Hopefully, they never will.

Answer 4

We use the threat of nuclear attack all the time. It worked great against the Soviets and probably prevented a third world war. We also ended a world war by using a couple of bombs.

Also called 'deterrence.'

If we were attacked or threatened with WMDs then the USA reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in defense - and I think that's a pretty good policy.

By the way, the option of NOT using nuclear weapons can easily result in MORE death. There were more people killed by conventional bombs in just ONE NIGHT of fire bombings during WWII in Europe. The use of the nuclear weapons against Japan saved more civilian lives than would have been lost if the Japanese government hadn't been forced to surrender.

It's Einstein's fault anyway not the USA's. =P

Answer 5

There are already a brilliant variety of world places with nuclear weapons and almost each united states has an WMD arsenal. the concern between worldwide places coming up nuclear armaments and those which already have them are different and could addressed one by one. One distinction could be that Iran has not in basic terms suggested yet another united states could quit to exist, they have threatened it. at a similar time as the U. S. has disagreed with a dictator or with terrorists we've not suggested the finished united states or race of persons could be eradicated.

Answer 6

Deterence has worked so outstandingly only because other countries fear we will use them - the reason no President will ever say otherwise. If that belief somehow goes away, in a situation where a major war is imminent, a limited nuclear strike would b a life-saver for both sides, especially if it were a high alititude detonation that would only destroy electronics/computers. Basically a shot over the bow to restore the belief that we will use them if need be.

Answer 7

I would consider using them for defense against attack by any other nation that would attack us! All of the things that you cite as being your first choice are fine, we don't have them, yet! If we disarm what is to keep us from being attacked by some rogue nation, other than the thought that they will be stricken back & with great force? Perhaps you would rather die, I would rather my children & I live. If our having such weapons makes us safer, then by all means we should keep them until we can be sure that we have other means to defend ourselves. The only reason they were used during the second W.W. was because it was estimated that it would take over a million more deaths by the allies to defeat Japan. We had already lost enough of our youth during that war, we were not going to send a million more to die. If you find fault with this reasoning; perhaps you should consider how it would be to have been one of that million being sent to die needlessly when we had the weapon to end it without the deaths of more of our people. It was a horrid thing to have to do, I have seen the pictures, we were not proud of having done it, but at the excess cost in more of our loved ones dying against an enemy who attacked us without warning & were more than willing to see us die, I don't see what choice we had. If you can tell me a different choice that could have been made, I'm willing to read it!

Answer 8

Sure, if another country used weapons of mass destruction against the US.

Either nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

As to completely dismantling all nuclear weapons, that's a pipe dream.

There is no way to ensure that all countries complied with nuclear disarmament.

Just look at the 1990's accord with North Korea to to stop research on plutonium based nuclear weapons.

So they stopped plutonium research and started working on uranium based nuclear weapons in secret.

Answer 9

If the Constitution of the United States is threatened which means the American population is in imminent danger of attack, or in cases where use of the weapon would save "very many American lives" has Harry Truman put it, then in those few circumstances use of the weapon should be strongly considered and possibly/probably used.

Answer 10

You need to study the term "escalation" and "Mutual Assured Destruction" as relates to nuclear strategy. We don't have "MAD" with the soviets any more, but the principle still applies with all the emerging nuclear powers these days. Unilateral disarmament is unthinkable, unless we are ready to give up the best insurance for our own survival.