answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

It could be argued that nuclear weapons provide a deterrent. Many believe that they did. They represent an "or-else scenario" wherein any aggression that is "over the top" will get a nuclear response. Certainly other powers can taunt and even attack a nuclear power on a limited basis, but no "full scale assault" will probably be risked because of the threat of a nuclear response. It is true that some non-nuclear powers have engaged nuclear powers in broad acts of war knowing that the risk of a nuclear response is minimal. But it is different with nuclear powers. They are more careful acting in ways that the other could interpret as overly aggressive. We could go on, but let's go to another aspect of the use of a nuc. There was a program called Plowshare back when, and it posed peaful use of nuclear weapons. A nuc could be used to dig a big hole for, say, a water reservior. The Russians did it as a test, and they set of several devices to try different applications. The U.S. did a small shot (Sedan) to test the application of a nuclear blast for mining. The radiation release, however, is just too great, even with a good shot. Public objection increased, and Congress, who holds the pursestrings, waved off further testing. Under Plowshare, the use of nuclear weapons was suggested as a "pressure reliever" for large, active geologic faults, like the San Andreas in California. If building pressure there could be relieved with a "big hammer" like a nuc, then there'd be less of a chance that a big quake would occur. But it was also pointed out that the nuc might actually trigger a big quake, and no one wanted to pay the freight on something like that. The liability was too great. Using a nuc to relieve pressure along a fault is a good idea, because it is possible that we could avert a really big quake. You know. The one that kills dozens or even hundreds and does billions of dollars in property damage. But the first shot is extremely risky. If we could "get past" that one, we might be able to take action regularly to squash those huge pressure buildups that, when released, cause the big quakes. But we didn't "break through" with that idea. Maybe for the best. Check the links below for more information.

User Avatar

Wiki User

14y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
More answers
User Avatar

Wiki User

15y ago

Positives-Atomic age Negatives-Lives lost

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What were the positives and negatives of the atomic bomb?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

Atomic bomb positives and negatives?

life


Positives and negatives of television?

what are some positives and negatives of television


What are the positives and negatives about being a psychologist?

What are the positives and negatives about being a psychologist?


What are the positives and the negatives of the primary source?

= What are the positives and the negatives of the primary source? =


What are the negatives and positives to a mri?

There are no negatives


What are positives and negatives on tidal?

the positives are no pollutionn woo the negatives are....you need water:(


What are the positives of logging?

positives- furniture negatives- deforestation


What was the positives and negatives of the model t?

the positives and negatives are buying the supplies and tools to build the Model T


What are the positives and negatives in theocracy?

Positives: You won't have to do the country votes


What are the positives and negatives about being a pizza delivery driver?

Positives - you get money Negatives - you can eat the good smelling pizza you are holding


What are negatives and positives on computers?

the positives iss my love is jone cina


Integeration in math?

negatives and positives