0
Will possession of nuclear weapons act as deterrent to Third World War?
DebabrataSengupta
So far it has for over 65 years.
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How didn't nuclear weapons prevent war?
Nuclear weapons only serve as a deterrent to war when both warring nations possess them. If only one nation has them or neither do, a conventional war is still very possible. That is why all of the Cold War wars occurred in third world countries where nuclear weapons were not present. In contrast, the Cuban Missile Crisis (and the corresponding Turkish Missile Issue) did not lead to war between the USA and the USSR specifically because both nations had nuclear weapons which could effectively serve as a deterrent to the other.
How do you use armament in a sentence?
The U.S. government believes its nuclear armament is a deterrent to the possibility of a third world war.
How many nuclear weapons does China have?
Around 400 nuclear warheads. China has the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
When did England get nuclear weapons?
The UK was the third country to obtain nuclear weapons, after the US and the USSR. The UK had its first successful nuclear weapon test in October 1952, a plutonium warhead similar to the one dropped on Nagasaki.
What state is the third largest nuclear weapons holder?
France, with just short of 300 warheads.
Who was the third country to have the atomic bomb?
The third country to be legally accused of having nuclear weapons was the United Kingdom, right after the United States and the Former Soviet Union.
What is Frances major industrie?
Well France is the third largest weapons supplier in the world, which mainly build warships guns, nuclear weapons, and equipment, Primarily by the French Goverment. France is also the Europian Union's leading agricultural producer.
If the 3rd world countries acquire nuclear weapons will the powerful nations respect this country sovereignity?
Really, the best use for nuclear weapons is to destroy cities. Cities are relatively compact target areas and extremely vulnerable to a nuclear blast.Nuclear weapons would not be much use on a battlefield. During the 1950s the US military thought for a time that future battlefields would see the employment of nuclear devices of relatively small yield. The US Army had a cannon with nuclear projectiles, and nuclear shells were developed for the main guns of battleships. US troops were put in nearby trenches when test explosions of nuclear devices were carried out, to accustom them to nuclear detonations (many later developed cancer).But the fact is, on modern battlefields troops are usually widely dispersed, due to the threats of the artillery and automatic weapons of the enemy. Armies no longer maneuver in massed formations. Thus, nuclear devices would not kill many more enemy troops than conventional weapons, and would pose grave risks to the troops using them.Its one thing to build a bomb. Its not all that difficult, if the materials can be obtained. Its quite another thing to make it into a truly devastating thermo-nuclear device. And its also quite another proposition to maintain a nuclear arsenal so that the bombs will go off as intended, if the day ever comes when they are to be used. And its also quite another problem to be able to deliver a bomb to its target.Since nuclear devices have no real battlefield use, and their main threat is against cities, any third world nation creating nuclear devices will be suspected of harboring intentions to use them in a terroristic manner, by smuggling them into foreign cities and there detonating them. Since many third world countries are third world countries to begin with because they have a history of chronically unstable and corrupt political leadership, the prospect of a nuclear armed third world country will be most alarming to the "powerful countries". The powerful countries will be much more likely to invade a third world nation seeking to develop nuclear weapons, and that right soon, before the weapons can be completed, than they otherwise might.So, no, embarking on the path of nuclear armament will be an invitation to violate the sovereignty of a third world nation which chooses that path. Watch developments in the next few years with Iran.There are much more productive uses to be made of the money, resources and scientists required for a nuclear program which would be of infinitely greater benefit to any third world country than a nuclear program. Such a program would be akin to painting a target on your forehead, and would do little for the betterment of the life of the average citizen.
What is the world's third largest producer of nuclear capacity?
the world's third largest producer of nuclear capacity is Japan.
How many nuclear weapons did the United States have in 1945?
The first thing you have to understand is that the US did not stockpile usable nuclear weapons in 1945. The nuclear weapons available in 1945 came in unassembled "kit" form and took days for a bomb assembly team to assemble before use. The orders during World War 2 were to drop the nuclear weapons on Japanese cities as soon as they became available.The Manhattan Project had plans and facilities to make and use 23 nuclear weapons on Japan before the end of 1945, but only 2 were actually used. A third nuclear weapon was finished by Los Alamos and shipped to San Francisco but the Japanese indicated they would surrender and Truman ordered the nuclear bombing stopped before it arrived, so it was returned to Los Alamos.Soon after the end of World War 2 the Manhattan Project found it necessary to cut back production of plutonium significantly to limit unexpected radiation damage to the graphite moderator of the 3 Hanford reactors. Official declassified documents show that instead of being able to finish the remaining 20 nuclear weapons planned for 1945, Los Alamos was only able to finish 1 more due to the plutonium shortage from the Hanford reactors!Here is the timeline:July, 1 nuclear bomb built, 1 nuclear bomb exploded (Trinity test)August, 2 nuclear bombs built, 2 nuclear bombs exploded (Hiroshima, Nagasaki), 1 more nuclear bomb built, unusedSeptember through December, 1 more nuclear bomb built, unusedFrom this we can see that the United States built 5 nuclear weapons in 1945 but because they were used as soon as they became available the only time during the war that more than 1 nuclear weapons existed was just before August 6, when the first one was dropped on Hiroshima. At no time in 1945 did the United States have more than 2 nuclear weapons at the same time.
How are atomic bombs used today?
Atomic bombs (and all nuclear weapons) are not actually used in the sense that a country actually drops/fires/launches a nuclear weapon against a foe. Their massive destructive potential has caused them to be moved from a purely military device into the political arena. Nuclear weapons today are political tools - that is, the possession (or implied attempt to possess) these weapons is considered a political statement, rather than a military one. As such, the quantity, location, and capabilities of a country's nuclear weapons take on significant political meaning. The ability to potentially use such weapons adds a completely new dimension to international relations. Primarily, nuclear weaponry is used for three purposes: to discourage the use of any Weapon of Mass Destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological, toxin, etc.) by threat of immediate retaliation via nuclear arms, as a moderating influence on aggression by other nuclear-equipped countries, and as a brake (via implied threat) on non-nuclear countries attempts to acquire nuclear weaponry themselves. The second of the above has been the most successful political use, while the first has seen modest success as a strategy, and the third is mostly a failure.
What are the top ten countries in nuclear weapons?
first box is the country, 2nd is the active Bombs, third is non-active bombs, fourth is the TotalUnited States7,200~ 3,300~10,500Russia~ 6,000~ 4,000~10,000France38480464China20390410UK1850185India060+?60+?
