Are you surprised that a nuclear weapon hasn't been used in war since 1945?

Question

With all of the nuclear weapons out there in the world, are you suprised that someone has not used one in anger (not testing) since the ones used on Japan in 1945? It's really unusual that something that was only in its infancy when used in war (1945) did not see a repeated use. 1945 is like an eternity ago as far as weapons development goes. Given the number of unaccounted warheads in the world for instance, we have either been extremely lucky, or the whole "nuclear" threat was/is some kind of conspircay. Any thoughts on this?

Additional Details

Good point Dan T about only listening to the media...but any nuclear explosion above ground would be very difficult to conceal for long with the lingering radiation, etc....

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

Are the testing of nuclear weapons that safer/better than use in warfare?

Answer 2

are you retarded...it's not that if someone uses one, that's it. If someone uses one, everyone will and the world will be over, learn something about war tactics.
There is no "warning nuclear strike" or "small nuclear attack" Its either total annihilation, or don't use it.

Answer 3

Nuclear threat is a load of crap for the exact reason that you mention. Not to mention, with so many countries that presently have, or are capable of making a nuclear weapon, if one country uses a nuke against another, they could surely expect a nuclear retaliation against their people. And nobody wants that.

Answer 4

I'm not surprised. At the height of the Cold War the U.S. had enough nuclear explosives to kill everyone on Earth fourteen times, and the USSR was close behind.

No one dared set off any nuclear bombs because if they did either their enemies or their enemies' allies would follow. We wouldn't have a planet left.

The development of nuclear weapons has to have been the stupidest thing humanity has ever done, in my opinion.

Answer 5

I think that the way that the Nuclear bomb had progressed (To Russia and whatnot) that the assurance of Mutually Assured Destruction was enough to keep the bomb as a last resort. Do not be fooled, the world has been on the edge of Nuclear war more than once.

As far as I am concerned it is only a matter of time... I do not see the world ending with anything short of a Nuclear war or another sort of Mass Extinction from Global Warming.

Answer 6

Good quetion dude! I am surprised that the nuclear option has not been used since 1945. The quest for power doth corrupt.

Answer 7

I'm very surprised.

Answer 8

Good question. Yes, in a way I am surprised but then also I am not. It seems to me its the threat that each nation wants to have, that has more potency.

Louis L'Amour, the western writer, in one of his interviews made a statement like this. '...a gun in its holster is more dangerous than one that has been drawn'-my understanding is that the threat has more power if its visible but not drawn, once its drawn the power of the threat is gone and the individual is ready for the shooting.

Or in school, with our children--a bully has more clout if he is a threat. If he is stood up to and fought, even if he wins, the person who faced him has taken the fear away, by meeting the challenge-and showing him to be vulnerable even for a few minutes--he is not super human.

So, in this bully like world, with nations having power over one another, its a game that they all seem to be playing.

Even the USA, as the most powerful nation in the world has lost its clout by showing it is not a super human entity.

Answer 9

Not at all, the last time it was used it killed many many people and had the lasting effects on people living there for generations. Last time when used on Japen, many people see it as a desperate measure. And it was much safer then as well. Now with all the countries having nuclear power, 1 use could blow up the world. And unless anyone wanted to blow up the earth, it's better it was not used. 1 blast would have started a nuclear war, which would be much more deadly than world war 1 and 2 combined

Answer 10

are you sure or you just listen to the media

Answer 11

Not really as that would be the beginning of the end of all worlds and earth, It is to be used as a threat and what do you think?

Answer 12

When Alfred Nobel invented dynamite, he thought he had ended war, because nobody would think of unleashing such destruction on human beings. Same when Hyram Maxim invented the modern machine gun. They were wrong. Weapons don't get built to remain unused.

The first half century of the nuclear age has been dominated by the MAD (mutually assured destruction) theory. Since we were really talking about a potential war between just two mature powers, it would be impossible for a bomb to drop without knowing where it came from. With the advent of submarine missile launchers, a decisive first strike would be impossible. Therefore, an attacker could expect to be wiped out in the second wave. Thus, nuclear war wasn't practical, and the weapons remained on the shelf.

It's necessary today to consider whether MAD still has meaning in a world where nuclear arms are about to become commonplace. An automatic retaliation becomes problematic when you can't be sure which enemy launched. And some of these potential enemy states have few population centers or industrial facitilies worthy of nuclear targeting. If you had to drop a nuke on Iran, Libya, or even Afghanistan, what would you aim at? What could you possibly hit that would compare in importance to New York, Washington or Paris? What if the bomb was sent by a stateless entity like al Qaida? The whole concept of symmetric retaliation no longer works. Suddenly, the threat of a nuclear bombing seems more palpable than at any time during the cold war era. Sorry kids, it's a much scarier world out there than it used to be.