Are nuclear weapons responsible for there being no global scale wars for over sixty years?

Question

As much as I hate to say it; could the threat of destruction that they pose have been responsible for preventing full scale war between the US and The Soviet Union in the Post WW2 years? Might they have actually saved lives?

I know its just speculation bit I'd be interested to hear any intelligent points of view

Answer 1

Well I don't have a particularly intelligent point of view on this, but I do agree, it was a deterrant.

Answer 2

More likely it was because russia went bankrupt

Answer 3

I'M WITH YOU .

Answer 4

Yes I think that it served as a deterent for war!

The problem today as everyone knows is that extremists or terrorists, might get WMD and start destroying civilizations as we know them!

Too bad that other planets are too far away! Only those that have the means will be able to escape!

Answer 5

Yes.   As Reagan properly pointed out..... PEACE, through strength.

Answer 6

Yes, there is peace in strength. "Peace through Strength" is the doctrine that military strength is a primary or necessary component of peace. It is also the meaning behind the olive branch and live oak branches within the seal of the state of Texas and of the Republic of Texas. This is sometimes taken to mean world peace, and sometimes taken to mean peace for the possessor of the military strength. This doctrine is a major justification cited for large militaries, and also served as the primary motivation behind the Cold War doctrine of mutually assured destruction.

Answer 7

I wouldn't say totally responsible but it plays a good part of why we haven't had any world wars in the past 60 years.

Answer 8

Before nuclear weapons, humans tried to avoid wars. Now we must avoid wars.

Answer 9

well if you can call far advanced machinery from WMD to spacecraft punching small holes in the ozone,atmosphere then the answer is yes

the person to blame is the person who found realitivity