 
|
willys56cj5
|
Not really, except as a deterrence. However, our largest threat today is from terrorists that usually have no home ties and are not deterred from the threat of nuclear attack. |
|
Mark
 |
Well, empirically speaking, they certainly do help. Just look at the positions in the world today of President Bush's famous "Axis of Evil".
Iraq: No nuclear weapons, invaded, government deposed, dictator on trial.
North Korea: Claims nuclear weapons, in negotiations with the US, no invasion, dictator still in power.
Nuclear weapons equalize the playing field for countries that cannot compete militarilty in either quality or quantity with the more developed nations of the world. Even if the US military could trounce the North Korean military without losing a single person, the presence of nuclear weapons fundamentally alters the equation. Nuclear weapons provide a near guaranty of inflicting some losses, even against a vastly superior foe. The ability to incur damage on your enemy is what stops them from wiping the floor with you whenever they want. For countries that can't defend themselves conventionally, yes, they're necessary. |
|
liketoaskq
 |
Put it simple. If it is required for you, then it is required for others as well. |
|
Scotty Providence
 |
They are not necessary, but no two countries with nuclear weapons have ever engaged in physical warfare. Then again, the same thing can be said about countries that have a McDonalds..... |
|
Zakir
|
Can you tell me.. could you defence yourself from the death? Death is inevitable and only with the will of God and no human. Nuclear is nothing to defend any country. Tell me If major earthquake (7.6) happened where the nuke situated. Whole land will be destroyed.
Only peace and love can defend any country from another.
20 years back , it was atom bomb, now nuclear then another. Tell all the leaders of the world to take the prayer from people to defend themselves from hell fire (when he or she die) and God.
Nuke is bull **** , it is to dismantle peace not to restore defence or peace. |
|
Poet_Lleri_el
 |
Nuclear weapons are necessary only for the defense of "Worlds." Individual countries seem to come up with bigger, better, badder ways to destroy the innocence of life - the children of tomorrow. It seem MAN as a species, is destined to destroy the same world on which they live. The greatest problem is that Man does not inhabit this planet alone. Though weapons of such destructive natures are not needed, humans tend to destroy ALL!!
My heart goes out to all the innocent children that die Wars perpetrated around the world. If children are Humans greatest gift to themselves; why do they destroy them so readily? |
|
great.sunil
|
Yes I think sooooooooooooooooooo....................... |
|
sumanth
|
when a enemy has got aweapon for our safety we need it ........ |
|
Karina B
|
Yes. |
|
Alan S
 |
Apparently not. Seems the Iraqi freedom fighters are doing quite well against the occupying forces (US) with only single shot rifles and homemade explosives. |
|
purple diamond
|
according to america, only america should them
everyone else should destroy them |
|
jai k
|
i think nuclear weapons are not at all a necessity. it ofcourse leads only to destruction.I hope the world nations open their eyes and stop the race of supremacy over the other which leads to the other producing it.if peace is advocated and all the nations abide by it infact the defence spending can be minimised by all the nations and spend thse same towards upliftment and better standards of humanity. |
|
The Answer Man
|
Nuclear weapons have no defensive properties. Nuclear weapons are used as an offensive tool, or a retaliation weapon. The only defensive qualities they have are to create fear in the minds of our enemies, if our enemies know we have them and are willing to use them, then they make think twice about attacking us. |
|
Indian
|
No..... Simply they can defend them with make friends of their enemies. |
|
Reaper King
 |
yes. fear is the best weapon in any defense. if you know your enemy has the ability to strike with devastating consequences, you will be less likely to attack. which is generally why smaller nations seek to obtain nuclear power as a deterrant to other, namely the US, countries who wish to infest their land. |
|
Reaper282
|
The purpose of any nuclear weapon is never to actually detonate it, but for deterrance--that is, to scare any would-be attackers into thinking about the outcome of retaliation.
The fact that the US actually used two such weapons in war makes that country's possession of nukes particularly effective. |
|
surelynotme
|
Arguing that nuclear weapons are defensive is like saying that I should walk around pointing a gun at everyone to defend myself just in case someone is thinking about attacking me. Nuclear weapons should be universally banned. |
|
peaches
|
I wouldn't think so, but there are alot of people that do. One nuke zero people not a pleasant thought. |
|
john doe
|
yes,we can be free from some of the nuts |
|
Daniel
|
no |
|
YR1947
|
not necessarily not if another country threaten to use them against you so you do whatever they say |
|
I Seek
|
No. The Bible has the ONLY solution. Repent, fast, and pray for the country and God will hear from Heaven and HEAL OUR LAND!... |
|
Jim from the Midwest
|
too simple a question for ntaional defense. However if a terrorist group hits us with a dirty bomb expect retaliation of the same sort. Bad juju for everyone |
|
|
|
|
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
