There are many country out there have the capabilities of using the Nuclear Bomb. The country like, 1. US 2. UK 3. Russia 4. China 5. North Korea 6. Israel 7. Pakistan 8. India 9. France and others. So the point is, " Do we need to use this nuclear bomb?"
Yes, if another nation use it against you. Otherways, it should function as a war-preventer and never actually be used.
Are you talking about a specific nuclear bomb? Now that I think of it, it sounds like you are asking for suggestions. Man what you can buy today on Ebay amazes me. tom <= MADD doesn't work on suicidal people.
Not too specific. Only that do we need to use it? Sooner or later, there will be other country having a nuclear weapon. Maybe Singapore or Australia will have it? Who knows.
There's no option for "not right now" ... so I'm not going to vote. ATM, there's no need to ^_^ If we are nuked, we need to nuke the attacker back. It's that simple.
yes we need, if we're bored, or if others won't agree with us. I'm sure nukes can help solve lots of conflicts very fast. but leave the nukes away, there're much better toys out there A counple of these things could put an end to all the suffering..
Maybe.. maybe it can. After all what do we have to store all the nuke in silos. From time to time we should use it.
I guess its a bit like police walking around with guns, they don't have to use them, just to see a police officer with a big sub machine gun is enough to prevent people from commiting crimes. The problem is when a country that maybe has some dodgy plans gets hold of some nukes, like north korea - that's already causing some problems, and is likely to escalate.
If anyone has played Superpower 2 that game shows how Nukes are to be used -- simply as a war preventer. If -- anybody -- used one, then they would be nuked by the allies of whom they attacked. Those allies would be nuked by the allies of the country that first fired, etc. Until we are all screwed...
That's relying on people using them logically, sadly they're falling into the hands of administrations that are less than logical. In a perfect world only the hegemon would have nukes, as long as they were stable then it would prevent war. History tells us that when there are more than two superpowers then it's a receipe for hot war.
I don't think so. Since we can play this dumb game of, 'what if', I think if a nuke was used, based on the situation the world wouldn't respond. Example: 1. Terrorists use a nuke in NYC. (other than the loss of real estate, most people would forget in a few weeks. Look at 9-11). 2. Israel is nuked. (99% of the world hates Israel, and within the US I wouldn't be surprised that the majority would abandon Israel to keep oil cheaper). Two examples how nuke for nuke wouldn't happen. tom MADD doesn't work with suicidal people! Nuclear winter was disproved, so let's nuke first!