Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentMilitary · 1 decade ago

Nuclear deterrence does increase security?

Im using the example of coldwar, indo-pak crisis, HIroshima etc...

BUT i need a counter argument for this argumet

Many people criticise the strategy of nuclear deterrence based on the psychology behind other words, the opponent country has to be WILLING to deter for the deterrence strategy to is fundamentally dangerous to assume a similar outcome in deterrent situations when there is variation in the thinking of every leader of a country

I need a COUNTER-argument for the above statement

PLEASE ADD anything that will help me SUPPORT my thesis...

(some ppl earlier gave me answers that DO NOT support my thesis)


1 Answer

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Hello there I am the surfer!

    Nuclear deterrence does not increase security

    Small arms from the second part of the 20th century has caused more deaths than the whole combined casualties from the two nuclear bombs of japan

    Civil strife provide good examples, small arms like the us rifle R 15 the soviet AK 47, the israeli UZI sub machine gun and pistols for common felonies like murder and robbery had caused many victims

    drug dealers arm themselves with uzi sub - machine guns!

    The cost of an AK47 is 75 us dollars it´s the silent massive assassin!

    In mozambique children are named after the AK rifle: Kalashnikov!

    The ak47 is the national emblem of Mozambique. it´s depicted on the national flag and national shield

    Countries with civil strife

    Algeria 1991 - 2002

    Chinese civil war 1945 - 1949

    Greece 1946 - 1949

    Guatemala 1969 - 1996

    Colombia 1948 - present day

    Lebanon 1975 - 1990

    Liberia 1990 - 1997

    Mozambique 1975 - 1992

    Nigeria 1967 - 1970

    Peru 1980 - 2000

    Rwanda 1990 - 1994

    Romania 1989

    El salvador 1979 - 1991

    Vietnam, 1974 - 1975

    Somalia 1991 present day

    Small arms and civil strife cause land distribution distortion, break up of families due to forced enlistment into private armies, the end of education for enlisted children, the use by force of fertile soil to grow drugs

    Effects of small arms trade and civil strife

    Political fractionating of a society

    The end of effective governance

    The end of foreign investment

    The upsurge of crime like kidnapping and murder

    The illicit trade of people : human trafficking!

    The end of development and the decline towards underdevelopment

    The decline of tourism

    The surge of drug economies to replace legal economies

    The distortion of natural resources markets like diamonds and oil blackmail to fund civil wars!

    Few countries engage in nuclear programs worldwide, MANY others engage in civil strife!

    The commerce of small arms provide excellent profits a lot of people are involved, few people got into trading nuclear materials

    Countries with nuclear power go to war with conventional armed forces! because MAD Mutual Assured Destruction!

    Countries with nuclear power got excellent intelligence services to asses enemy capabilities and not make nuclear mistakes like The Cuban Missile Crisis!

    Few countries got the money to fund nuclear programs! civil strife is


    From the surfer!

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.