Why should nuclear weapons be abolished?
This would be impossible as the basic physics of the designs of fission bombs is well documented in the open literature. Any competent physics grad student could design a medium yield fission bomb that could be expected to work reliably without a test. Countries that want them only need about 4 years to construct the infrastructure to make the fissile materials to build them.
3 people found this useful
Yes we should to protect AMerica from Russia causing a nuclear war in which if we didn't have nuclear bombs we would lose and a Russian flag would hang over whats left of your house. We SHOULD have nuclear bombs.
Answer . It is a bomb or explosive that relies on either nuclear fission or nuclear fusion to release a tremendous amount of energy. See the Related Questions and Web Links for more information. A nuclear weapon is any weapon that derives its energy from some combination of nuclear fission a…nd/or nuclear fusion. All current nuclear weapons are dependent on at least some nuclear fission to begin things. (MORE)
Since this is looking for an opinion, there are bound to be severalresponses: View 1 No. While on paper it sounds good to make the Middle East a nuclearfree zone, it would not actually deter any of the states seekingnuclear weapons. Additionally, it would lead to Middle Easternstates being far mo…re secretive about their nuclear capabilities. (MORE)
An explosive device that uses massive conventional explosives to split radioactive atoms and cause a MASSIVE release of energy by nuclear fission or fusion.. A BIG BOOM!!!!
That would really be your opinion on how you see things and how they would use the weapons because maybe they shouldn't use it but for defending the countries and war purposes then yes
A nuclear weapon is any device which utilizes the power produced by either nuclear fission or fusion (mostly fission) to inflict damage upon some type of target. Almost all, if not all nuclear weapons are explosives, either bombs or missile warheads.
Hey guys who read up on this question. . Can I ask for some help with this question? . I am doing a debate in my high school class. And I am on the AFF (Affirmative side) Meaning I'm on the side who agrees to get rid of nuclear weapons. . I have some points here I will share. I was wondering if a…nyone else would have some other thoughts? Ideas? That would assist me in this debate. . Points: . 1) Wasting the money on weapons research. ( STAT- Nuclear countries spend about $37 Million every second on developing nuclear programs.) When we could use all that money now to help out our decreasing economy. . 2) ( STAT - There is enough nuclear weapons to demolish the earth 7times over.) Why use a weapon if it destroys part of the earth we now live on. Plus the nuclear fall out would devastate other countries not affected by the current conflict. (If there was ever a conflict) . 3) Resources needed to make 1 nuclear weapon. Mining for Uranium, using up precious oil and natural gas to make weapons no really uses but for practice runs. Plus the resources needed to make 1 bomb is so radioactive, that if anyone person who tried to make one, would be endangering their own life. And if there was nothing to go wrong in the process the endangering of many other lives as well. . 4) Considering that what I've gathered from numerous websites, most people around the world are in fact against the use of nuclear weapons. So why have them at all when it causes so many problems just to make one and then to have one in your possession (MORE)
Why is the nuclear bomb so devastating do you think it is a weapon that any country should have why or why not?
Answer. The nuclear bomb not only causes destruction but it makes the area radioactive. Depending on the amount of radiation used and exposed to an area, the target area would have to be evacuated for 70 years or more.. No. The more countries that have it the higher the chances that one leader or …general will get desperate enough to use it. (MORE)
Considering the fact that any competent Physics Grad student using publicly available data could design a workable fission bomb (getting the materials to build it is another issue) having a yield comparable to the ones detonated in WW2; it is impossible to ban nuclear weapons . If a country wante…d them it will take them roughly 4 years to build the nuclear materials processing infrastructure to make the needed materials. (MORE)
I want one, if I could get certain restricted access materials I could design and build one. I expect my first attempt to be able to get a yield in the 20 to 40 kiloton range. I have already designed a simple explosive lens assembly and verified it would correctly focus the shockwave on the tamper. …Also I did a simple computerized neutron diffusion model to verify chainreaction multiplication factors, including losses. Still need to do computer hydrodynamics study and a few miscellaneous details. Scary isn't it how easy the design is! I have detonated numerous weapons, and am currently planning on using nuclear weapons in my quest for world domination (MORE)
Confirmed nuclear states: (In order of Nuclear Power) NPT States UK 1,000,000,000 and the super secret lemon party bomb Russia 3,800 USA 2,150 France 1,000 China 700-800 Non-NPT Powers Pakistan 90--110 India 80--100 North Korea (Confirmed)
Answer 1 This is an extremely difficult question to answer, from any number of positions (practical, political, moral, military, and even philosophical). To determine a plausible framework for discussing this question, we first must look at what has come before: that is, when looking at whether… to ban nukes, we should see what other weapons are banned, and why, then try to see if nuclear weapons have some analogous reasoning applicable to them. The Hague Conventions, several of the Geneva Conventions, Ottawa Treaty (Landmines), and Convention on Cluster Bombs have generally banned several types of weapons right now (specifically, we're talking about weapons whose USE has been banned): explosive bullets, chemical weapons, biological weapons, toxin weapons, weapons causing fragments no detectable by X-Rays, blinding lasers, certain incendiary weapons, "stupid" anti-personnel landmines, and small-scale cluster weapons. Looking at what we have banned so far, there seems to be several characteristics which lead to a weapon's banning. All of the weapons above have at least one of the following characteristics (and, many have more than one): . Infliction of excessively painful wounds, beyond that necessary for incapacitation. . The military utility is significantly less than the threat to nearby civilians . Their effect is to cause permanent, rather than temporary, injury. . Use causes indiscriminate damage, death, or injury not reasonably controllable or targetable by the weapon's user . Injury to civilian populations is likely to occur long after their military use In addition, and unstated, but nonetheless very important aspect of banning a weapon is that other more "humane" weapons are available to perform a similar (though not identical) function. For example: regular solid bullets instead of explosive ones, mass bombing or artillery instead of chemical or biological weapons, and "smart" (e.g. time deactivated, or command-detonated only) landmines rather than "stupid" ones. That is, humanity seems to be OK with banning weapons which are generally not unique in their utility. Looking at the above criteria, we can see that nuclear weapons certainly have the following characteristics which are similar to certain banned weapons: . Indiscriminate effects (inability of the user to reasonably restrict effects to military targets when civilian ones are in the vicinity) - compare to chemical or toxin weapons . After effects of the nuke's use linger for a substantial time and are difficult to neutralize - compare to biological weapons or landmines . Injuries are commonly permanent in nature, and many are disfiguring or severely painful - compare to incendiary or chemical weapons However, the first case above also applies to very-large-scale conventional weapons, and is more a matter of size than anything else (which, nonetheless, is important to consider). The second case is also signficantly less important than originally thought - residual radiation left by nuclear weapons is very short-term, and what does remain as long-term radiation has been shown to be much less harmful than expected (indeed, many experts now discount any real long-term impact of radiation in the immediate vicinity). However, fallout is still a huge problem, so while long-term effects nearby the nuclear explosion are unlikely to be noticeable around the detonation zone, fallout contamination can very likely impact a huge area outside the target zone. Overall, there does seem to be a real good argument for the banning of nuclear weapons, based on historical precedents. However, there is a major, practical reason they aren't right now: they are currently the weapon of last resort, one which no other weapon can take the place of. That is, nuclear weapons provide a failsafe, and a check on those acting in bad faith with respect to abiding by weapons ban. Should nuclear weapons themselves be banned, there will be very significant pressure on nations to secretly "cheat" and eventually to use banned weapons, particularly other weapons of mass destruction. To put it more clearly, if nuclear weapons are banned, then there is a very big advantage to be had by one nation into secretly creating chemical, biological, toxin, or even nuclear weapons, and then use them, as the military advantage of being the ONLY user of such a weapon far outweighs any sanction other nations may impose. Until some mechanism can be developed to remove the cheating incentive, the utility of nuclear weapons as a weapon of last resort will remain, and indeed, be sorely needed. Sadly, for now, I'd say that nuclear weapons cannot be banned. Answer 2 All weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological, ... etc) should be banned and eliminated completely. All faiths and religions ban mass destruction weapons. How do you allow a military force to use a weapon of mass destruction that kills children, women, old people, and animals that have no choice and never participated in a war? How do you allow use of weapons of mass destruction that destroys in moments hundreds and thousands of homes, plants, factories, and institutions? There is no logic; in our civilized world; in using weapons of mass destruction in any war. Per human rights and peace arguments, all weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons should be banned and eliminated. (MORE)
Because nuclear weapons are the most deadly of all weapons and can kill hundreds of thousands of people at once. Also, people will always get suspicious if a country is secretly making nuclear weapons e.g. Iran and USA. IF one country wants to build nuclear weapons then their neigh ours would want t…o too (MORE)
Because they somehow think the laws of physics can be legislated. However physical phenomena cannot be undiscovered. Once known somebody will use them.
No, nuclear weapons should not be used.. As regards using nuclear weapons, from the film War Games , the computer, Joshua, said it quite succinctly. "The best strategy is not to play.". And if you were paying attention in Men In Black , J said to the bug, "If you don't start nothin', there won…'t be nothin'.". Early US strategy regarding nuclear weapons was one of mutually assured destruction where both sides (the US and Russia) blasted each other back to the stone age. As long as both sides kept their fingers off the trigger, we were all safe from nuclear holocaust.. Times have changed, and the only "real" nuclear threats come from violent radicals who are seeking the materials and technology to build a working bomb. They are doing it as you read this. It will happen. The only two questions are where and when . (MORE)
actually nuclear weapons include all sorts of stuff like bombs,missiles and etc EDIT: A nuclear weapon is a bomb or missile which harnesses the power of nuclear fusion or nuclear fission to create a large explosion. They also spread extremely harmful radiation throughout the area. Atomic bombs…, used in World War II, are fission bombs, less powerful bu cheaper than fusion bombs, such as hydrogen bombs, which are ~10,000 times more powerful. And may I add the difference between the Fat Man and Little Boy? The Fat Man, was the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima (I believe I am correct) while The Little Boy was the Atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki. The difference between these two bombs are the materials used , as well as the explosion method. The Fat Man used Uranium while the Little Boy used Plutonium (I really hope I am correct) and that is the difference between explosion, and implosion. Not many people understand the catastrophe of a nuclear war/nuclear testing. If there was to be nuclear war, even if you were to survive, you would have to undergo a nuclear winter, which basically freezes everything, and even after the nuclear winter is gone, the ozone layer would be practically destroyed, therefore making the suns rays more powerful than ever... So, If I were to survive, I would make sure to carry a lethal injection everywhere I go, and this isn't even counting a Zombie Apocalypse... Don't get me started.... Haha. EDIT: The difference between Fat Man and Little Boy was that Little Boy plunged a bar of Plutonium through a reactive substance inside the bomb, which started the chain reaction, whereas Fat Man used a standard bomb style explosion. The reason Fat Man was hard to develop was that if the plutonium was exploded, it would burn up before a chain reaction occurred. So they had to use explosives outside the Plutonium to cause an implosion, which would cause a chain reaction. Little Boy was dropped first, on Hiroshima, and Fat Man was dropped second, on Nagasaki. Both of these were Atomic Bombs, or A-Bombs, unlike the Hydrogen Bombs, or H-Bombs, we use now. The difference is that A-Bombs use nuclear fission, whereas H-Bombs use nuclear fusion, which does indeed release 10,000 times as much energy. The basic concept behind both processes is the turning of matter into energy, which releases an amount of energy determined by the formula E=mc 2 , E being amount of energy, m the mass which is "destroyed", and c the speed of light in a vacuum. So even though it destroys mere atoms of matter, it produces a lot of energy. Thank You for correcting me... Sorry I was so spot off... . Still off. . Little Boy was a Uranium gun assembly bomb, using a small cannon to fire a bullet into a target making a supercritical mass and crushing 4 neutron sources to start the chain reaction. . Fat Man was a Plutonium implosion assembly bomb, using shaped charge explosive lenses (fast Composition-B & slow Baratol) to crush the material into a supercritical mass and crushing a neutron source at the center to start the chain reaction. It is impractical to build Plutonium gun assembly bombs as the cannon would have to be much to long to get the assembly speed fast enough to prevent predetonation fizzle. (MORE)
Any answer to this question would be pure opinion, but I sincerely believe that nations should not have the freedom to develop nuclear weapons. The more nations that have them, the more likely it becomes that they will be used.
Nuclear weapons are weapons which are fueled by nuclear energy.Examples of weapons that can be fueled by nuclear energy aremissile warheads and bombs.
Some of the countries have nuclear weapons because they use them asa defense mechanism. The nuclear weapons are intended to be usedwhenever there is a war.
Israel, America, Russia, China... that's all i can think of on the top of my head. Others that are "internationally allowed" to have nuclear weapons (approved by IAEA) would be France, and England, that I know of. I do not believe Israel is on that list.
The same reason every country should. They are unnecessary and pointless. Any use of them will result in catastrophe for everyone involved and won't solve anything at all. The exucse that "the US will fall behind and cease being a superpower, and would be at risk of attack" is a pure lie; the US spe…nds more on the military than almost every other country put together. With North Korea, Iran, and other countries like Russia, China, and India with Nukes, why should we get rid of ours?? Simple..We shouldn't..It is a cold hard fact that we live in a world where we are at risk from nuclear weapons..I wish they would all just go away..But stop blaming the Us..We do much more good than any country in the world, and we are always blamed as the bad guy..Usually by people that have no real clue as to what they are talking about, going only by what they read in the newspapers of countries jealous of American exceptionalism.. (MORE)
That is a very, very good question. Their only use is mass destruction, and when I say mass destruction, I mean life as we know it being severely altered.
The man has fists to hit,the legs to kick ,stone,knife,gun,M-16,missel and,of course,the nuclear weapons,all of these are defense for safety of life ,after the safety that will be happiness;but at each century,the war is existed;Nuclear weapon is a kind of weapon.
As this is a "should question" you will likely get differingperspectives. Answer 1 "Good idea if you don't mind millions of 'collateral' deaths. Bad idea if you care about humanity, the Earth, and your dignity". Answer 2 In response to Answer 1, remember 9/11 what's stopping thoseterrorists fr…om striking again. Nothing. We have to strike beforeAmerican soil is hit again. The Middle East has no abundance ofwildlife and it's a massive desert biome. It really won't matter ifwe bomb Iraq with a nuclear device. Also, what does dignity have todo with this. Nothing, wrong again. Also, what about Americantroops dying everyday to unimaginable circumstances. Those troopshave a future out of the army and can come out of the army and makea difference in the world by help curing disease, being doctors,and teachers. Those soldiers, are collateral lives. So yourbasically stating that it's right to kill hundreds of Americansoldiers who can make a difference in the world, but it's wrong tokill people who have been living by using outdated methods ofsurvival and most likely won't move out of Iraq to contribute tothe world. Those aren't "collateral" lives. You are simply staingit's okay to slaughter Americans but is not okay to kill peoplefrom Iraq that are living among a massive threat to the coalitionforces. This is not correct in any way. We should Bomb Iraq with anuclear device before we suffer the consequences. Answer 3 In response to Answer 2 and in support of Answer 1, it is whollyunacceptable to advocate the use of a nuclear weapon, ever. Forthose who believe that it is smart or desirable to use nuclearbombs, I strongly urge you to visit Hiroshima or Nagasaki and toread about the heart-rending pain that hundreds of thousands ofpeople suffered as they died from the atomic bombs used and themillions hurt from the emotional pain. In the Japan-situation, you had a hostile nation that the UnitedStates was actively at war with and proposed invasions of the mainJapanese islands would have resulted in tens of thousands if nothundreds of thousands of casualties. Japan had 4 million reservistsand the US invasion force is estimated to have been 2.5 millionpersons. Additionally, it is likely that Japanese civilians wouldalso have joined the fight against the American invaders. Theatomic bombing managed to prevent the invasion of the main Japaneseislands and end the war more quickly. The debate in the Japanesecase is whether the result of using nuclear weapons outweighed thecosts. I personally, find that argument unconvincing, but I can seehow someone might disagree with me. However, the Iraq case is far less tenable than the Japan case. Inthe Iraqi case, the Iraqi people and Iraqi government were nothostile enemies in war; the US chose to invade Iraq. Answer 2 alsomentions the long-debunked connection between al-Qaeda andSeptember the 11th on the one-hand and Iraq on the other. To attackal-Qaeda by using a nuclear bomb is an unconscionable form ofviolence even if Iraq was complicit in supporting them asAfghanistan was. It would be like justifying dropping an atomicbomb on New York City to stop the Italian mafia. It is neitheracceptable, because of the amount and percentage of civiliancasualties, nor successful in completing the objective, sinceItalian mafiosos don't only live in New York. Like the New Yorkexample, the best way to deal with al-Qaeda is through lawenforcement and targeted arrests of the organized crime andterrorist networks. Additionally, using a nuclear device in Iraq would furtherstrengthen Islamic Fundamentalists like al-Qaeda. One of thestrongest deterrents for many Muslims from joining al-Qaeda andsimilar organizations is the belief that Islam and the West cancoexist peacefully and that violent resistance to the West is notin Islam's nature. By performing something as heinous as firing anuclear weapon in an Islamic country, you would vastly weaken theappeal of both of those arguments and therefore make IslamicFundamentalism become more mainstream. It is critical to avoidletting the fudnamentalists define the narrative. (MORE)
U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev came within a hair's breadth of agreeing to phase out their stockpiles of nuclear weapons. General Zhu Chenghu of China's National Defense University, made some remarks that stirred an unusual uproar in the West and in the United St…ates in particular. According to reports in the Western media, Gen. Zhu, in responding to questions in a briefing session on China's foreign and security policy with a delegation of foreign journalists based in Hong Kong, seemed to indicate that in a possible military conflict with the United States over Taiwan, Beijing would be no match for the United States in terms of conventional capability. Zhu thus suggested that China should perhaps be the first to use nuclear weapons to deter a possible U.S. intervention. Today, the United States is the only nuclear power that continues to deploy nuclear weapons outside its own territory. The approximately 480 nuclear bombs in Europe are intended for use in accordance with NATO nuclear strike plans, the report asserts, against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Iran and Syria. Israel has not confirmed that it has nuclear weapons and officially maintains that it will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East. Yet the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons is a "public secret" by now due to the declassification of large numbers of formerly highly classified US government documents which show that the United States by 1975 was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons But as the questions says, there should no be nuclear weapons. (MORE)
Nothing good come from it OK. Imagine that you are sitting in your house and there is a nuclear war going on in your country and terrorist drop a maga11 bomb on you because your country has NUCLEAR Weapons you would be die. ^^^IGNORE^^^ think strategicly would u attack china knowing they could …strike back with a Nuke they dont tell or show off the location of there nuke so there is no point in taking a guess. who ever answered this first is a bit dumb. (MORE)
every country have the right to defend them self from evil why is USA not allowing Iran to do it? simply because Iran are EVIL
I think the use of nuclear weapons should be banned. They are to powerful and to many of them are out there. There are enough known nukes total to kill more than 5 times the actual amount of people in the world.
No one should have nuclear weapons! I agree they cause nothing but problems. All they do is grant people power to kill and strike fear in the world. There is nothing good that can come from nuclear weapons.
I suggest that they don't because in my opinion lets make Pakistan the bigger person. I say that no one should keep producing these deadly weapons. No one wants to die this way, i say this because soon Korea will destroy us with these death bombs! :'(
No we shouldn't because without nuclear devices to protect the US from losing the Cold War, Russia will abliviate the US and North Korea would take advantage of this situation and will attack South Korea causing another Korean War to break out. COmbat has evolved since WW2 and the Vietnam War. War h…as become more advanced, and the US has to keep up with Russia or before you know it you're dead or hiding in your basement to prevent harm from a nuclear bomb strike from hitting the United States. As I said, We have to keep nuclear weapons for the safety of America. (MORE)
Because the nuclear weapons will not bring peace they will just bring more and more war and that will definitely not solve any problems.
There is no right or wrong answer to this question. On one hand, a nuclear weapon allows a smaller nation the ability to fight back against a larger one. For instance, if Poland was a nuclear power in 1939, how might it have changed the history of WWII if Berlin had been destroyed by a nuclear weap…on? So nuclear weapons give nations a great weapon that could cause other nations to think twice before attacking. Also having nuclear weapons could be a great sense of pride and of progress. If your nation has the ability to process and maintain a nuclear arsenal, then your nation can do almost anything it sets itself to do. There is also a false belief that two nations with nuclear weapons have never gone to war. Many people forget that both India and Pakistan have gone to war while also being nuclear armed. Additionally, India and China have also fought. On the other hand, 3rd world nations are prone to unstable governments, corruption, lax security, and possibly even a bad command and control mechanism for when and how to use nuclear weapons. One of the great concerns right now is Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Pakistan is a nation rife with corruption and unknown allegiences of many in its government. If the government were to collapse and the military found itself in a civil war, where would the nuclear weapons go? Who would control them? You can imagine the outcome if a member of Lashkar-e-Tayyba or al-Qa'ida were to get their hands on a nuclear device. Additionally, it could cause an arms race and cause a domino affect of sorts. If one nation in a region gets nuclear weapons, the others will fear for their safety and start building their own and then neighbors of those countries will do the same. With heightened tensions, it would become much more likely for one nation to accidentally or intentionally detonate a nuclear weapon on their neighbor and ignite a regional nuclear war. So again, there is no right answer. Not all third world nations are on the verge of collapse and could easily maintain a nuclear arsenal. I suppose it comes down to motive and intent. (MORE)
This is a moot question. At the very end of WW II, the United States had built two nuclear bombs, both of which were ultimately dropped on Japan. That was all they had - a third one would have taken several more months to build. And World War II ended 66 years ago.
The effects of nuclear weapons range widely: . Blast . Thermal flash . Light flash (including UV) . X-rays . Gamma rays . Neutron rays . Firestorm . Windblown fallout that can be any mix of strong alpha, beta and/or gamma emitters. Tends to concentrate in areas of rain/snow downwind of bla…st. . etc. Each of these effects can be influenced by many variables: . Design of bomb . Height/Depth of burst . Overcast conditions if airburst . Type of surface at "zero point" . Type of material enclosing burst if subsurface burst . etc. All of the above interact in complex ways. (MORE)
That is a question that has been debated all over since 1945. In WW2 it had only one reasonable answer, they had to be used! Since then it has never been at all clear. Where is the boundary in warfare that would allow their use? Nobody knows.
NO. That is not nice. Don't be anti-Muslim. They're not all mean. Garsh. Now, if they bomb us, then that's a wholenother story...
The International community as a whole and several key states in particular, must grapple with need to resolve the contradiction at the heart of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treatywhich some claim means nuclear energy is an inalienable right. Theinalienable right to nuclear energy is a historical a…nd political mistake. (MORE)
The US military has Special Weapons Schools where you learn how to operate, maintain, etc. nuclear weapons.
No because they will just attack us.they already have to many nuclear weapons they dont need anymore.
nuclear weapons should not be destroyed they should be improved by my finding in 2023 there will be an alien attack on the united states of america, #getpussy
No. Iran and Israel should be countries that are at peace with oneanother, as they were prior to 1979. Additionally, no countryshould use nuclear weapons in combat; they are horrible devices. ===== Answer #2: I think the questioner used the word "Should" as a form of "If",asking whether a nuc…lear attack on Israel would have adverse effects on the Palestinianterritories too. It seems to me that it's a certainty, upon which one could safely wager. Nuclear explosions are incredibly dirty. The fireball itself is asource of intense radiation, and every particle of sand or soil that the explosion kicks upbecomes radioactive, and spreads radiation wherever the wind takes it. Observers of thefirst successful atomic bomb test in New Mexico in 1945 were in a safe bunker almost 6miles from the explosion, and even some of THEM contracted radiation sickness. The longest possible straight line inside Israel is barely 260miles long, and there are places where the country is only 9 miles wide. Wherever in the country anuclear device were to be detonated doesn't much matter. If the wind blows in one direction,death rains on the West Bank and Jordan, and if it blows in the other direction, Gaza becomes aPalestinian graveyard. (MORE)
\n\n\n\n\n\n. \n . No. Whether or not we should have used the nuclear weapons during WWII is one debate, but there is no reason for us to attack Japan now in any way. We are close allies.
The answer to this would vary depending on who you ask. Some people say that countries, cities, states, etc should not be able to have nuclear weapons because it is not only dangerous to the country that are the target, they also put that area they are located at in danger.
North Korea has already built nuclear weapons. So it doesn't really matter whether anyone believes that they should or shouldn't be allowed to do so. The next question would be, should North Korea be allowed to keep its nuclear weapons? It would be better to overthrow the Kim dynasty and take away t…he nuclear weapons and introduce democracy and reunification with South Korea, but those things would be very difficult to do. The existing dictatorship is heavily armed and will fight to the death to prevent its own replacement by better government. So, we play a waiting game. If North Korea becomes sufficiently dangerous, the world will react. For now, it is mostly bluster. North Korea has promised to launch missiles against the US, but so far it has not done so. (MORE)
I do not have the power to bomb anything or anyone. As for whetheranyone should use nuclear weapons, I am fervently opposed to thatidea.
well for the sake of humanity hopefully not, but if confronted with nuclear destruction from another country they should retaliate.
Yes and they pretty much are because of scarcity of uranium anywaysbut we will be way beyond nuclear destructive power soon- lazersare becoming more and more effective and we can even create a blackhole artificially that could swallow the Earth. Scientists areworking on weapons that don't rely on a …reaction that is finitefrom an element. Imagine a weapon like a nuke where the reactionNEVER ends. . . . . (MORE)
That is very much a matter of opinion. From a practical, purely'warfare' point of view many - even the British military - mightconsider it money better spent on other things; or in the case ofthe military, on weaponry much better suited and much needed forthe British Army's mostly policing and peace…keeping tasks of today. But being a nuclear power has political benefits in the eyes of theBritish government: you belong to an elite group of 'nuclear'countries; it justifies Britain's prestigious position in the UNSecurity Council; and it makes you generally being taken seriouslyon the world stage - exactly the reason why North Korea wants to beconsidered a nuclear country. So it's practical and ideological arguments on both sides. Youchoose for yourself. (MORE)
There was very little choice in the, there was a very serious fearthat Nazi Germany was already well along in this work. If Hitlergot an atomic bomb he could likely win the war in europe veryeasily. It was necessary first to determine the difficulties andsecond if those difficulties could be surmoun…ted to try to makeatomic bombs before Germany could (if possible). It was unknown that the German project had faltered and when WernerHeisenberg (the project's director) tried to pass this informationon to Niels Bohr in occupied Copenhagen Bohr misinterpreted thereport as either disinformation or a veiled threat of the German'sprogress toward the atomic bomb. When Niels Bohr escaped to Englandhis report of Werner Heisenberg's comments only increased theconcern about a possible Nazi atomic bomb being eminent. (MORE)