US nukes. Are they not a threat to world security?

Question

"if they were a threat they'd been used by now."

they were used TWICE. In Hiroshima over 150 000 people have died from the blast and radioactivity. In Nagasaki it is a little over a 100 000.

Nobody else has proved cruel enough to use nukes. Nixon, was quite eager to use them in Indochina.

Actually, Big Jon, I do think otherwise. I think that the death of "hundreds of thousands of US soldiers" would have been justified. Whereas the murder of close to 300 000 civilians is simply a war crime.

As for the present enemies of the US. You made those enemies. Stalin proposed disarmament many times, as did Kruschev. Iran is a signatory of the NPT and has so far obedienly followed it. The US is in violation of the treaty for every nuke it has produced after signing. Israel is not even a signatory.

Very many nations have pleaded for the US to lead a project of global nuclear disarmament. The weapons are not strategically useful. Deterrence is a dangerous doctrine, since accidental nuclear attacks could be the end of us all.
The US has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. Don't tell me it's for defense. Quite clearly, the US has the weapons to scare other nations into doing its bidding.

We need global disarmament. Americans are just as dangerous as anyone

"Russian communist slavery "
ha ha ha! ha ha! That's priceless! The US saved Japan from Communist Slavery! Ha ha. They didn't colonize Japan or anything. It was actually for their good, ha ha.
The Nazis were also invading other countries for their own good. The British claimed they were killign Zulus for their own good.

Truth is, the US sacrificed 300 000 people to a nuclear holocaust so that they and they alone could control Japan and the Pacific.

Wake up.

"Look how well the North Korean Communists have done for there people."
N.Korea is under siege. Americans love to destroy countries and the say: look at all this destruction, you people can;t govern your own countries.
I know your tricks. I studied history. I read history on a constant basis. Imperialist apologists have been around for much too long.
By the way, Russia is right there. Why was the US involved in Korean politics? Empire anyone.

Besides, your contention that the US prevented the USSR from using an atomic bomb is laughable. We have no transcripts indicating Soviet intentions of conducting a first strike. The US, on the other hand, offered the bomb to the French to use in Indochina and we have plenty of transcripts of Nixon's conversations where he contemplates using nuclear weapons in Indochina.

If anything, we have to thank the Soviet Union for keeping the US empire at bay. We would all be working in sweatshops making Nike shoes if it weren't for the USSR.

"We failed to free Cuba"
Ha ha... CUba has been free since 1958. Free from US gangsters and dictators. Soon all of Latin America will be free from the US military and corporate grip.
Furthermore, the missiles in Cuba were a response to two provocations. 1) the US placing missiles in Turkey 2) US terrorism against Cuba.
If it had not been for Khrushchev we'd be all dead by now. What history are you reading?

Answer 1

Wow, you caught some venom on this one.
I think with this President they are.
I think every country should have ICBM nukes. If every country had nukes, I think we would all get along a lot better, or we would blow ourselves to hell and back.
That's the stick we threaten everyone else with, why shouldn't they have a stick too? Diplomats would become much more important and coventional war would be moot. That's the beauty and madness of Mutually Assured Destruction, baby.

Answer 2

Absolutely not. We have had nukes for 60 years and they have not been used for anything except deterrence since the end of WWII.

Since you mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were good reasons to use these weapons then, and an entirely different mindset among the American people regarding the war. Harry Truman decided, at the advice of his military leaders and cabinet members, that it would be best to inflict the casualties on the Japanese to end the war instead of sacrificing the hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, killed and wounded, it would have taken to invade the home islands of Japan. Do you feel otherwise?

Do you think we should unilaterally give up our nuclear weapons with Russia changing the way it is and still having nukes; with China's military build-up and having nukes; with North Korea's push to acquire nukes and a mad-man's finger on the trigger; with Iran's drive to build the bomb and DIRECT THREAT to eliminate the West and bring about a world dominated by Islam; with both Pakistan and India having nukes, and Pakistan's government on the edge of collapse into an Islamic State?

IF we were to give up our nukes, do you think the rest of the world, and the above countries specifically, would praise us and sing "kum-ba-ya" in celebration?

Your ignorance is astonishing!

Answer 3

Obama will do not anything for Israel. He will speak probably, however now not intervene. He is a Muslim as definite as I am white and male. This guy is an absolute threat to the sector as we realize it. People have got to quit watching via the ones rose coloured glasses.

Answer 4

cruel to use in Japan? May I remind you that Japan was our enemy and that if we invaded, EVERY citizen would have made an effort to kill our troops. We probably saved more Japanese lives than AMericans by dropping those bombs.

If we made our enemies, it is because we refused to allow them to controll us and take away our personal freedoms.

The Us Nukes are not a threat to security. In fact they probably stopped a third world war from happening

Answer 5

Enemies of the United States would have you believing they are a threat.
Teddy Roosevelt coined a phrase, "Walk softly, but carry a BIG stick." It's a good saying, but personally, I like "Peace through superior firepower."

Answer 6

Let me take a wild stab (not a physical threat Yahoo!) at something. You're just pretending to be a brainless moron right? Or your doing the work of your moron teacher.

Answer 7

Are we threatening anyone with them? No. How about Iran? They haven't even got a working one and they're already threatening other nations. Personally, I think your stupidity is a greater threat to world security.

Answer 8

Oh yeah, absolutely...we should disarm and let more stable governments (like N. Korea and Iran, maybe? India and Pakistan?) have nukes....

Answer 9

Thus far they have detered many wars so I'd say no.

also your question is stupid if they were a threat they'd been used by now.

Answer 10

um....no...they are not. They are a deterrent and are used as such. The create peace, people know we have them, and will use them if needed. We have never threatened any peaceful country with them.