Is the Atom Bomb an effective measure to Prevent War?

shrikant

It is due to MAD - Mutual Assured Destruction effect. Any nation makinig the first use of the Atom Bomb is sure to get A-Bombed and get destroyed. So it is a Lose-Lose situation. Though it has prevented World War, it has NOT brought the World Peace. The World today is being torne apart by violence in the name of religion and regional supremacy and trade interests. The development of Atom Bomb was an inevitable thing to happen. We are now on the brink of World Destruction if the Bomb fell in the hands of rougue States like Pakistan, Iran, North Korea... Atom Bomb was the WORST thing to happen in the history of Humanity. It is a weird, crooked but true logic!

joshua w

Well we don't really use Atom bombs anymore we have Hydrogen bombs and a variety of other cool things that go BOOM! But yes, the theory out there there is that we have the bomb, some of our enemies have the bomb, and we all know what happens if we decide to use them. So basically it's a sense of safety knowing the other person won't use them. The problem is now that we are to scared (yes it's mainly all the liberal Obama koolaid drinkers) to even threaten use of them. If countries like North Korea, Iran and Syria ever get them that theory might go out the window. Or if some of these vest-bombing psycho's get them we might really be screwed. So vote Republican, yes we might seem like the big bad mean guys, but you know what I'd rather have a scary president who does what needs to be done than a president who is more worried about pissing of Alec Baldwin.

johnnyreb1025

kinda hard to say on one hand when has a major nation threatened the United States since we dropped the bomb. on the other most people have accepted that MAD (mutually assured destruction) has been created by the discovery of the atom bomb

Dominic

Yeah. It's been nothing but peace and sunshine since 1945, right?

Andrew

As Einstein said

""I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"

That pretty much sums up my view, however there's always the odd chance some extremists on either side could can their hands on a nuclear device and then we'd be in for it.

Baby #1 on 12/10/08

World peace? Not even close.

Classical detertance has worked in that one country hasn't nuked a country that has nukes for the simple fact they don't want to be nuked in return. Nations with nuclear capabilities have also held to the agreement that nuclear weapons shouldn't be used on nations without nuclear capability. That doesn't throw out war, it just holds off nuclear war.

Since 1945, we've had Korea, Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, and now Operation Iraqi Freedom. Not to mention the numerous conflicts and civil wars the US has not had a large presence in.

Looking at our current relations with North Korea and Iran, war may end up on the table in order to keep them from developing nukes.

There are other groups, such as jihadists who believe that killing the enemy is their mission from God, and not only will they be rewarded a for killing as many as they can but also after death if they're killed by the enemy. In this situation, classical deterance doesn't work because one side doesn't care if they live or die. Again, if it comes down to it, war may be necessary to keep such people away from getting atomic bombs.

slew

During the Korean war, we were prevented from invading China because we were afraid of starting a nuclear war. We ended that war in truce because of it. Pakistan and India now are talking more reasonably because both countries has nukes and we are restricted in our actions dealing with Pakistani terrorist because of their countries nukes. As for North Korea, if they didn't have Nukes, I would advocate bombing the heck of that country. I would tell CHina if they don't complain we would give them a piece of it.

RekonDog

If you threaten me with one..I'd quit!

Wei

Yep we should use the atomic bomb in the middle east!!!!

Pocket Protectorate

World Peace?!?

There may not be any "WW(fill in number)'s wars going on right now, but there's about a thousand other little wars raging like a constant forest fire of global conflict...but...

In one respect, our using the bomb in WWII sent a message to the rest of the world that we were willing to use them, and in THAT respect we actually gained some respect, if you will, indubitably, bibble bibble bibble...belch!

And since then, nobody has fired any of their's at us, so again it might be argued that "Our Having" the bomb "first" is a more accurate blah blah blah blah blah...bibble bibble bibble...

Coors

The atom bomb doesnâ€™t prevent war. Itâ€™s a tool used by primary to influence through presence regions of interest. The United States does it with Israel, India and Pakistan while China uses the threat through Korea and the veto vote on the security council.

The future shape of our world is as precarious as our Supreme Court in the United States. Where the balance of power will end up remains to be seen but with the election of Obama a constitutional lawyer we might be alright. The recent decision of Eric Holder, Obama appointee to end the prosecution of Ted Stevens speaks volumes.

The atom bomb doesnâ€™t prevent wars and in the new world its threat gives rouge nations and groups a leverage they wouldnâ€™t have otherwise. Why did we invade Iraq ? The threat of a mushroom cloud. Why is North Korea relevant ? The threat theyâ€™ll acquire a nuclear weapon. Why the war on terror ? The possible threat theyâ€™ll acquire a nuclear weapon. We are living at the mercy of the possibility that some group somewhere might develop a nuclear weapon. All of this while Russia is linked with the death of Russian traitor Alexander Litvinenko died of nuclear poisoning, while in London.

We are wasting our time in North Korea while the former administration looked into the eyes of Putin and saw the goodness of his soul. We are wasting time and resources on North Korea while Russia has been linked with Polonium 210, a rare and powerful strain of nuclear radiation. All the witnesses are dead despite the best efforts of Scotland Yard and they died slow painful deaths.

The British requested that a man named Boris Berevosky a Russian tycoon be extradited but they refused. It was while in London Alexander Litvinenko wrote two books. In one he accused Putin and the government of trying to start a second Chechen war through acts of aggression credited to Russian enemies much like Nero in his campaign against Christians. His second book was an expose on Putin and his rise to power through tyranny and influence.

The reality is nuclear power doesnâ€™t stop wars it encourages them much like violent people at a gun rally with a opposing viewpoints, the one with the biggest, quickest, most lethal gun wins.

I have to wonder if Rube Bush knew that Putin had the 210 on some level and avoided any conflict by claiming heâ€™d seen his soul and it was good so in his own ignorant puppet way left it at that.

Iâ€™ve heard it argued that a gun is the equalizer when a woman who is weaker is confronted with a stronger offender. Thatâ€™s how nuclear power works the threat of it helps smaller nations compete on a more international map. The nation of North Korea would not be on map if it werenâ€™t the drama of itâ€™s potential development of nuclear weapons and China loves that drama. It doesnâ€™t prevent war it creates them and it creates ambiguous wars and threats that nations can exploit for there own personal agenda case in point case in point Iraq and the potent ional â€œmushroom cloudâ€.

NSA

Has anyone noticed a war between Russia and America? Has anyone noticed a war between China and America? Has anyone noticed a war between China and Russia?

It appears that nuclear deterrence works.

Jason W

No, They caused the cold war, and there are still countless wars happening all over the globe. The creation of super-weapons causes more fear, resulting in more countries creating even more powerful weapons causing fear and a constant need to one up each other. Our tensions with north korea have to do with weapons of this nature.
Thanks Einstein!!!!!!!!!!

Ð¯Î±âˆ‚ÃÇšÐ¼ Ð¯Î±âˆ‚ÃÎ±Ï„Ç¿Å¿

Hardly...

Ray

We could disband our entire military except for our sea based nuclear deterrant and we would never ever ever be invaded.

Unfortunately, now we have these sloppy little "precision surgical police action" mini wars that are always a mess because we always have to have extra rules and make them sanitary for the news.

If you're not gonna go all out, don't go at all. But I'm not a general or politician.

Tiberius

First off, Jason W is a moron.

Second, atomic bombs are use to ignite fusion bombs. So the other brainiac who said atomic bombs aren't around anymore is smoking out of his asss.

Third, the world has hardly been at peace since 1945. More violent deaths have occurred in wars since 1945 than occurred during WW2. Look it up.

Finally, it is completely impossible to nail down factors that have resulted in not having a WWIII. Global economy and free market interdependence has created a win-win situation that all players benefit from. China hasn't attacked the US not because of nukes, but because their economy will disintegrate if the US' does. France may hate the US but they love Big Macs and Hollywood. You cannot attribute "peace" (such as it is) to one contributor like the Bomb.

But, the thought of total annihilation certainly has caused nuclear powers to restrain themselves. Understand, however, that if Hitler had the bomb, he would have used it over and over and over.

The Bomb, in and of itself, is nothing but a weapon of war, and warlords will make use of it.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: