Anyway, it doesn't matter who started 911 and if that means they should have nukes or not, my point was that no country should have nuclear weaponry because of the destruction they cause which is unimaginable compared to the attacks on Hiroshima.
The war could have dragged on far longer and caused more deaths than just 250,000. Not even those were necessary if Japan had surrendered when given the chance the first or second time.
Not to mention that Japanese troops were still marching across China. Many decided not to leave even after the war was over because they were not willing to give up.
2) The total casulties in WW2 ranged from 50-70 million people. 250,000, while large, pales in comparison.
Ideally, no country would have weapons of mass destruction, but since they do exist, if a country has them it's best if that country is stable.
The only problem with that is, say France thought Serbia waged war on France. They might fire a nuclear bomb at Serbia only to find out it was a hoax, they can't just apologise because Serbia would be destroyed and even if it wasn't a hoax, many neighbouring countries would experience some of the radiation for years to come.
The only problem with that is, say France thought Serbia waged war on France. They might fire a nuclear bomb at Serbia only to find out it was a hoax, they can't just apologise because Serbia would be destroyed and even if it wasn't a hoax, many neighbouring countries would experience some of the radiation for years to come.
If something that simple could send a nuclear bomb flying, there would have been hundreds more dropped in the past 60 years. There's a reason the term MAD came about you know. Firing a nuclear bomb insures destruction to both parties.
If something that simple could send a nuclear bomb flying, there would have been hundreds more dropped in the past 60 years. There's a reason the term MAD came about you know. Firing a nuclear bomb insures destruction to both parties.
That's a good point,but if firing a nuclear bomb insures destruction to both parties, what is the point?
That's a good point,but if firing a nuclear bomb insures destruction to both parties, what is the point?
There isn't one, unless you're crazy or willing to be destroyed along with someone else. Which is why there's fear of Iran having nuclear weapons, there are many terrorists in that region who would do a lot to get their hands on one and Iran's government isn't all the pure or stable.
There isn't one, unless you're crazy or willing to be destroyed along with someone else. Which is why there's fear of Iran having nuclear weapons, there are many terrorists in that region who would do a lot to get their hands on one and Iran's government isn't all the pure or stable.
So what your saying is that nuclear weapons are pointless, only perhaps for reassurance that they have some just in-case.
So what your saying is that nuclear weapons are pointless, only perhaps for reassurance that they have some just in-case.
No, I'm not saying that. They were developed with the goal in mind of having a super weapon to end the war. Now all countries want them because it's sort of like brining a BB gun to a fight against a bazooka if you don't have them.
No, I'm not saying that. They were developed with the goal in mind of having a super weapon to end the war. Now all countries want them because it's sort of like brining a BB gun to a fight against a bazooka if you don't have them.
Yeah I would agree with that. There have been many cases like that in WW1 between Britain and Germany. Britain builds a huge navy, so German wants a huge navy. Britain starts making tanks, Germany thinks 'Ja das Tank ist gut' and starts building tanks. Now it's between Russia and America who has the most nukes which was what the cold war was practically about.
