no, i do not believe that it is just fo the us to use military force to take nuclear weapons from a country. This takes away a country's defense and deeply inplies that we believe that we are the all powerful country. We should not be allowed to decide what countries are an actual military threat. So, no, in my opinion, it is not just. no, i do not believe that it is just fo the us to use military force to take nuclear weapons from a country. This takes away a country's defense and deeply inplies that we believe that we are the all powerful country. We should not be allowed to decide what countries are an actual military threat. So, no, in my opinion, it is not just.
yes
As a deterrent.
The US has imposed trade restrictions against Iran in hope of pressuring their government to abandon its attempts to build nuclear weapons.
To prevent tough guys to play with the war. If we use the nuclear weapon, nobody will survive. Nobody should play with the war.
its not the UN, its the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
there are 14 countries which are licensed to make nuclear weapons 5 veto countries and other are developing nations
He believed that developing nuclear weapons instead of preparing for conventional war was more cost-efficient.
North Korea already has the nuclear weapons, it is delivery vehicles it is developing.
That is a policy goal of preventing more countries from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. Michael Montagne
To prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to other nations.
The US military has Special Weapons Schools where you learn how to operate, maintain, etc. nuclear weapons.
John T. Cappello has written: 'Tactical nuclear weapons' -- subject(s): Deterrence (Strategy), Military policy, Nuclear arms control, Nuclear weapons, Tactical nuclear weapons
the conventional military is less important than nuclear weapons