Y nucler cuntries need all those atomic bombs?

Question

dont you think that there should be no atomic bombs . all those countries which have atomic bombs should destroy all the boumbs starting from Rusia and usa as thay have more then this earth can take where are we humans heading to .ant we diging hole for our self .

Answer 1

Because everbody is convinced that all the other countries are full of genociding maniacs. Come on, say all of America's nukes went down by magic during the height of the Cold War. Would the Soviet Union really have attacked? I mean, they had an oppressive Government and all that, but would they really have killed millions of people? Were they really that evil and sadistically twisted?

Is anybody? Just because that Iranian president looks like a d**k and talks like an arrogant *** doesn't mean he'd lightly take millions of lives with a button press.

Answer 2

It's the concept of Deterrance through Mutually Assured Destruction.  Movies are movies...  but M.A.D. has a history of actually working.

Ideally speaking, a world without any nukes does sound wonderful....  But being realistic, how do you make sure they're ALL gone... and how do you make sure NOBODY (especially some complete whacko) ever makes another one?  What then?

Answer 3

It is competitive politics

Nuclear bombs are required to maintain internal peace in neghboring countries

Answer 4

1) Nuclear weapons are NOT the biggest problem our planet faces. Consider starvation, disease, etc.

2) Nukes serve as a deterrent - you mess with me and you get to meet Mr. Mushroom Cloud. In theory, this has never been tested by any nation. We used them to end a war. Nobody has ever actually used them to meet a new threat. Hmmmmm

3) Even if the US, USSR, China, etc _said_ they had destroyed their nukes, how would you know?

4) Nuke for a nuke is a long-standing and (IMO) sound international policy. You use a nuke on us, and we _will_ use on you. This includes terrorists, and yes, we can figure out where the bomb came from even after it's gone off.

Other than that, we don't need them. US has shown over and over there are far better ways to fight a war. We don't _need_ them anymore, even for defense, really. So I'm neutral on the whole issue.

The better questions is this, if we must have nukes, why do the Democrats oppose efforts to replace the old detonators with new, more reliable ones? I mean, if we have them, shouldn't they be SAFE?

Answer 5

A country feels like it has to have an atomic bomb if its neighbor, particularly a hostile neighbor, has one (not saying I agree with that mentality, but that's how the thinking goes). And many countries feel that if they have the a-bomb, and their enemy has such, then neither will ever actually be tempted to use it, since as soon as one side does, the other side has to respond with equal force (we've all seen movies like Fail Safe and WarGames, right?).

What's particularly hypocritical are countries that have atomic bombs telling countries that don't have such that they *cannot* have such.

I agree with you -- there's no need for all these a-bombs, as there's already enough to destroy the Earth several times over with what exists.

There are lots of groups advocating for a reduction, if not the elimination, of a-bombs. If you feel really passionate about this issue, join one (or more) and get active -- posting to YahooGroups won't do much good, but getting involved in addressing the issue will.