Personally, I think the USA should dismantle all of their nuclear weapons. We could set an example for all of the other nuclear armed countries in the world. I do not think we should spend $25billion to construct better nuclear weapons. What do nuclear weapons defend us from? I think they just annihilate societies and extinct animals unlike nonnuclear weapons.
2007-10-26 15:56:54 · 17 answers · asked by robert f 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Sorry, the Pandora's Box has already been opened....
2007-10-26 21:38:13 · answer #1 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nuclear weapons are not tactical weapons, they are strategic. The only point in having nuclear weapons is to deter attack from other countries that also possess nuclear weaponry. Scrapping all of our nuclear weapons is not a viable feasible solution, however treaties like SALT did help in reducing the stockpiles and the ammount spent on them. I suspect the best solution would be to dismantle the silo network and SAC and simply retain the submarine platform as that is the most capable platform to perform second strike capability.
2007-10-26 23:44:04 · answer #2 · answered by tis_bernie 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
And then we can all sing Kumb Ba yah, and then get rid of the rest of military like the world did after WW1. Great idea nothing bad happened as a result of that huh, oh wait an evil man named Hitler built up once of the strongest war machines ever and by the time the world had the combat power to stop him he had murdered millions and millions more had been killed in combat. As for your answer what do nuclear weapons defend us from, well lets just say that for the 50+ years of the cold war it was not tea and crumpets that kept the USSR from ever invading Western Europe through the Fulda Gap.
I am sorry as for me I think we need to realize one fact which is a constat throughout history, that in order to have peace we need to be prepared for war. Always remeber the Latin phrase:
SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM,
2007-10-26 23:42:40 · answer #3 · answered by satcomgrunt 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
SET AN EXAMPLE.!!!! Now there is probably the most stupid idea I've seen on Y.A. for years lmao. Bubba---this world is a dangerous places, there are people out there no matter how much butt kissing you do--want to see this country destroyed-and its citizens killed or imprisioned. This world isn't ready to be the all you need is love sound stage. What you suggest is like the woman telling the rapist she prefers a peaceful world and she's getting rid of her handgun. HOW OLD ARE U?
2007-10-26 23:40:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The United States needs to be able to deter other nations as well as actually protect itself if the need arises.
Whatever the most powerful weapon is, the U.S. needs to have it.
The best way to avoid conflict is to be powerful and deter it.
The United States could never do anything as foolish as eliminating its' nuclear arsenal until such time there are more advanced weapons.
The United States is not strong and free because we lack a great military and arsenal, it is this way because we have it.
God Bless America.
2007-10-26 23:12:33 · answer #5 · answered by InReality01 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Mutual Assured Destruction: We have them because they have them.
Full Dismantling of the nuclear program is not smart, it leaves us vulnerable, but a huge scale-back would be nice. We spend so much on our nuclear arsenal that could go towards furthering humanity.
2007-10-26 23:28:18 · answer #6 · answered by Jon 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Downscaling to 100 nukes would be a step in the right direction. Plenty to destroy any nation to the extent life would not be worth living, even the most rural areas.
A thing to look up regarding nuckes is about defective guidance system. Want to look up information where missiles won't launch or would arrive at the wrong destination, just look up the subject of "tin whiskers." A very big and growing problem.
2007-10-26 23:16:02 · answer #7 · answered by genghis1947 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think you are nuts. If America became a non-nuclear nation, we would be overrun within months. Just like the cold war, the threat of nuclear retalliation is a big reason against major attack against us. Without our nukes, terrorists have no reason not to attack.
2007-10-26 23:01:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well don't you want to have nukes to fire back after we are attacked? They defend us from shithole third world countries who hate us and will do anything to see us die.
We should definitely be upgrading our weapons to keep with the times. You wouldn't send a soldier in tomorrow with only a muzzle loader, would ya?
2007-10-26 23:01:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you, but i think that nukes are more of a psychological weapon. I don't think the government would use nukes(i could be wrong), because it is thought that it would set off an entire chain reaction. Every other country would begin setting off their own, and within hours, or maybe even minutes, the entire earth would be uninhabitable for thousands of years.
2007-10-26 23:02:08 · answer #10 · answered by The King 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Save some modified nukes for when an asteroids comes towards earth, and save a couple of them just in case...
2007-10-26 23:02:11 · answer #11 · answered by ____________________________ 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋