Should the US use nuclear warfare again?

There has not been nuclear warfare. There have been two nuclear attacks. Nuclear warfare denotes the use of nuclear weapons by both or all opposing sides. The only use of nuclear weapons in warfare were the two bombings by the US of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it was the intent of the US to bring WW2 with Japan to a quicker conclusion.

I believe no one should use nuclear weapons.

(China Syndrome) and ( Silkwood) dealt with Nuclear-power safety issues- quite distinct from nuclear warfare, bomb scares and possible terrorist use.

Unless you are involved in governmental policy making, which most of us are not, the second best way to prevent the use of nuclear weapons is to raise awareness of the dangers of nuclear warfare and hopefully that will cause sufficient interest so that the government will act accordingly.

The discovery , development , use and proliferation of nuclear weapons , the development of bacteriological warfare coming from laboratories ,

It gives you energy you can use in your everyday life

yo should use surroud sound because it enhances the game.

Thermonuclear warfare is the use of nuclear weapons in war, either tactically or strategically. Although the term "thermonuclear" technically applies only to the process of fusion, the term is loosely applied to conflict involving fission weapons, fusion weapons, or both (informal synonyms are "atomic war" or "nuclear war").

No. During that war it was US doctrine to utilize chemical warfare only for retaliation; the US would not use it first. Biological warfare was not US doctrine. Not to be used. The US reserved the right to "first strike" with nuclear weapons.

If provoked again due to a pre-emptive attack on our homeland, the USA would inot hesitate to use nuclear warheads on another country.

Certainly yes

I do not have the power to bomb anything or anyone. As for whether anyone should use nuclear weapons, I am fervently opposed to that idea.

Red => under conventional attack Black=> Nuclear strike imminent Yellow=> use caution and have chemical warfare gear at hand

well for the sake of humanity hopefully not, but if confronted with nuclear destruction from another country they should retaliate.

Julian Perry Robinson has written: 'Public Health Response to Biological and Chemical Weapons' 'The effects of weapons on ecosystems' -- subject(s): Biological warfare, Chemical warfare, Environmental aspects, Environmental aspects of Biological warfare, Environmental aspects of Chemical warfare, Environmental aspects of Military weapons, Environmental aspects of Nuclear weapons, Environmental aspects of War, Military weapons, Nuclear weapons, War 'The United States binary nerve-gas programme' -- subject(s): Asphyxiating and poisonous Gases, Chemical weapons, Military policy, War use 'Chemical…

No. Yes. That pretty well covers it.

no, if we don't use it someone else will.

we shouuld not have not have

No, only two nuclear bombs have ever been dropped as acts of warfare and both of those were dropped by the USA on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II.

You don't need nuclear energy. There are many alternatives to get energy; nuclear energy is just one of many options.

Indiscriminate regards the committing actions without restraint. A negative aspect total conventional and nuclear forms of warfare are the indiscriminate destruction to and losses of life.

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 they should evacute evry one to china

no because you could have an accident

I think so, others disagree

It can't be. It is natural and available. Someone will use it.

Land warfare, naval warfare and amphibious warfare.

That is false. You should create them in such a way that they can be used again, so that when formulas work, you can use different values in the cells that they reference. That is false. You should create them in such a way that they can be used again, so that when formulas work, you can use different values in the cells that they reference. That is false. You should create them in such…

Nuclear energy is very strictly licensed, and I can't see it ever being acceptable to have dangerous nuclear waste on the roads in private cars. The only suitable form of transport to use nuclear would be in ships, but again it would need to be strictly controlled-can you imagine a ship captured by pirates and being ransomed?

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.

The nuclear arms race was a competition for supremacy in nuclear warfare between the United States, the Soviet Union, and their respective allies during the Cold War. Starting with the scientific breakthroughs of the 1930s which made their development possible, and continuing through the nuclear arms race and nuclear testing of the Cold War, the issues of proliferation and possible use for terrorism still remain in the early 21st century.

The use of nuclear warheads on the Middle East.

because canadians feel tha its a thraet

They used Armored Warfare and Aerial Warfare

Have you tried detonating it? I would say try throwing it again.

Cyber-warfare, also known as cyberwar, is the use of computers and the Internet in conducting warfare in cyberspace.

Nuclear reactors use nuclear fission.

Mankind is not ready to use nuclear power. We must dismantle the reactors that are in use and perfect other safe methods of energy. Otherwise we are doomed to repeat Chernobyl again and again until the earth is laid to waste.

When a substance, compound or element is found, man begins to think no how to use it for warfare. Some scientist discovered nuclear acting components like Marie Currie and the heads went up thinking about the nuclear bomb. Germany thought about it first but the United States beat them to it and used it against Japan.

What new technology did Germany use to combat the trench warfare standoff? What new technology did Germany use to combat the trench warfare standoff? What new technology did Germany use to combat the trench warfare standoff?

To prevent tough guys to play with the war. If we use the nuclear weapon, nobody will survive. Nobody should play with the war.

i say you can use animal. But the one animal i think you should use is a monkey. But then again it depends on what animal you are writing about.

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.

so u can use it again

The source of nuclear power is the nucleus of an atom; any atom. As long as there is mass in the universe there will be a source of nuclear power. Even if in the future we run out of the radioactive material we currently use to fuel nuclear power plants, it would be foolish to assume that we will never again be able to harness nuclear energy in another way.

If you use a heavier isotope of iodine, it should be radioactive.

more, more, yes please more!

By having a reasonable distance between the nuclear reactor and the consumers. For example, 150 million kilometers should be relatively safe.

Well I like to use the fal with fmj, slight of hand pro. The secondary I would use Magnum, fmj,or magnum akimbo

i use nuclear family in a sentence like this i have a nuclear family inside me.