Question about nuclear weapons?

Question

Believers in mutual deterrence say that there would be fewer wars if more countries owned nuclear weapons. Why do you think that is? Do you think they might be right?

Answer 1

Well, it has more to do with the other side knowing if they launch them the other side is going to launch theres and both sides die. So it's worthless.

It's more like the biggest gun anyone can bring to fight but it garauntees both sides die equally.

Unfortunately not everyone is afraid to die anymore. Thanks religion.

Answer 2

I do not think so. Nuclear weapons are very NASTY. They destroy buildings, people,animals, and forrests. Too many could destroy our world. I think we need to stick with deplomacy or conventional warfare.

Answer 3

If the major players have NUKES, it could deter overt conflict between those parties but then you have the PROXY wars (Vietnam, Korea, Honduras) and PROXY fighters Palestinians, Cubans etc...

Unfortunately, that rationale has to be embraced by the major player.  UNFORTUNATELY can you see Islamic Extremists (Iranians' Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) or Communist fanatics (North Korea's Kim Jung II) settling DOWN with unfettered access to Nuclear weapons??

I think not!

Answer 4

true who would want the world to go to the end. plus every one would feel confident.

Answer 5

I suppose it's only a matter of time before most (who's to say not all?) nations obtain or create nuclear arms, but just giving that sort of power to unstable governments with even more unstable leaders would NOT be in the better interest of the modern (or, if you will, 'futuristic') world.

Point in case, I strongly disagree.

No long-term good could POSSIBLY come from giving terrible power to anyone.

Answer 6

that is not true just as you can see know nukes dint change the threat of conflict since the onset of nukes their have still been wars countries just don't want to use the nukes

Answer 7

Well, it all really depends on the person in charge of the use of said weapons. If we're talking about North Korea or any other country's that have less than sane leaders, then that would be a definite no. Leader's like that wouldn't hesitate to annihilate any country that opposes them in ideology, etc. I don't think that nuclear weapons should be developed by anymore countries. That's really just one more step to Mutally Assured Destruction. Even worse, if terrorists gain ownership of even one nuclear weapon from a willing government, deterence goes right out the window. They will use it as a bargaining chip to get what they want. In summary, detterence is only available when the right leaders have the ability to use the weapons. But that's just me.

Answer 8

I think mutual deterrence worked with the Soviet Union but I certainly don't think if more countries owned them we would be safer.  The last thing I want is North Korea or Iran with Nukes.