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.
Positives-Atomic age Negatives-Lives lost
life
the positives are no pollutionn woo the negatives are....you need water:(
the positives are they had doctors and educatio and democrosy. The negatives are they didn't have education they didn't have doctors or they didn't have democrosy.
Some positives are that the Nile stopped enemies from crossing, transportation, drinking, and they could bathe in the Nile. Some negatives are that the Nile could and kill crops and people, it attracted enemies, and that there were deadly animals in the Nile Hope this helped!
In general, a fusion bomb (hydrogen bomb) is more powerful than a fission (atomic) bomb. Fusion bombs use an atomic bomb to begin the fusion reaction.
life
what are some positives and negatives of television
What are the positives and negatives about being a psychologist?
= What are the positives and the negatives of the primary source? =
There are no negatives
the positives are no pollutionn woo the negatives are....you need water:(
positives- furniture negatives- deforestation
the positives and negatives are buying the supplies and tools to build the Model T
Positives: You won't have to do the country votes
Positives - you get money Negatives - you can eat the good smelling pizza you are holding
the positives iss my love is jone cina
negatives and positives