U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration will release its Nuclear Posture Review on Tuesday amidst the President’s dealings with Russia about reducing nuclear arms among the nations of the world. Obama has admitted that it is his goal, and a very long term one at that, to have a world that is free of nuclear weapons. The President has made it clear that the goal of a nuclear free world is one of his top priorities and while it is a goal he concedes will not likely be reached in his lifetime; he is nevertheless committed to starting the process now. Obama has stated that there are a series of specific steps that we could start taking to move in a direction that lessens the threat of nuclear weapons in the meantime.
The release of the Nuclear Posture Review from the Obama administration is the first step in the President’s process that is centered on nuclear security for not just the United States, but the world. In the review the U.S. has pledged not to use nuclear weapons against countries that are strictly following the global non-proliferation treaty. While that stance has drawn criticism from some who feel that pledge lessens the country’s ability to defend itself, Obama believes it will encourage the nations of the world to abide by the non-proliferation treaty while also discouraging outcast nations like Iran and North Korea from pursuing their nuclear ambitions.
Another step taken by the Obama administration is a new arms reduction deal with Cold War adversary Russia that was agreed to last week. The President will be in Prague later this week for a visit at which point he will sign the new arms reduction treaty with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Obama believes the biggest threat to global security however is nuclear terrorism and the President will be hosting a global summit on the matter in Washington next week. He feels that an important step in ridding the world of nuclear weapons is getting nations to lock down their loose nuclear materials. Even more ambitious than his overall goal, the President would like to see significantly better nuclear security from the nations of the world in the next four years.
Without nuclear weapons, another nation with nuclear weapons could launch an attack without worry of a retaliation. There are not that many ways of diverting a long-range ballistic missile.
Countries having nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons but without important reserves of uranium.
Nuclear weapons are a good thing for the United States because they prevent others from using nuclear weapons on the US. In general, the world would probably be a better place without nuclear weapons if it weren't for the fact that they lead to research in all fields of Nuclear Engineering, like Nuclear Power plants and Nuclear Physics. Since nuclear weapons already exist in the world, for the US to get rid of their nuclear weapons would be unwise. Countries that dislike nuclear weapons or even radical terrorist cells and organizations would now have no reason not to launch a nuclear warhead at the US since no retaliation would occur. The strategy of nuclear weapons preventing others from using them against the US is called the Deterrent Strategy.
No, the first Nuclear Weapons were created near the end of WWII as a way to defeat Japan without to great a loss to the USA's Armed Forces.
Because ww3 is around the corner and they dont want to be without any weapons. Nuclear weapons are a weapon but also a very good deterant
Every war that the US has fought except WW2 were fought entirely without using any nuclear weapons.
One reason was nuclear weapons, the other was a war without qaurtier
we wouldnt have clean nuclear weapons that didnt harm earth hope.
Force Japan to surrender without invading Japan itself which would have resulted in many allied soldiers being killed.
The best president in America's history is Ronald Reagan he saved us from nuclear war without firing a shot
Margaret Thatcher believed that a world without nuclear weapons could lead to increased instability and heightened risks of conventional warfare. She argued that nuclear deterrence played a crucial role in maintaining peace among nations by preventing conflicts through the fear of mutually assured destruction. Without this deterrent, she feared that aggressive states might feel emboldened to engage in military actions, ultimately making the world more dangerous. Thus, she viewed nuclear weapons as a stabilizing force in international relations.
This is intended to keep the country a nuclear DMZ where no nation can station their nuclear weapons on Philippine soil. However such laws are unenforceable in actual practice as any nuclear armed nation has the right to keep the location of those weapons classified and refuse to acknowledge or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on any base or installation within Philippine territory and the Filipinos would have no right to search to verify without causing an international incident.