Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 10 years ago

What are your thoughts on the role of nuclear weapons now that the Cold War is long gone?

19 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago
    Best Answer

    There will always be a cold war as long as some one has nuclear weapons. Just because it is not in the news, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    And a note to SD. No one has reduced the stock pile of nuclear weapons more than a republican named Ronald Regan who was an anti nuclear activist.

    Also the most nuclear weapons built in 4 years was under the peace loving Jimmy Carter. A US Naval Academy trained nuclear engineer.

    JD

  • The Cold War is not long gone, according to Prime Minister Putin, he is attempting to spread this type of logic, by enhancing tensions in South America. President Hugo Chavev is influenced by Russia's top KGB agent. The Cold War era and Putin and anyone like him will fail miseably. Technology moves information in nanoseconds, flying planes and sailing ships over countries, shipping missles back and forth Cold War style is antiquated. It becomes even more antiquated the as minutes tick off the clock. As a result, the efficacy of Cold War tactics do not have the potency to tip power one way or another.

    The magic number is 311. Based on military readiness studies, it would take 311 nuclear tipped missles to strike, then counter strike. Since many missles are sea based, some are air and others land based, the variety of options for military leaders be on offensive creates the scenario, the best defense is offense. Increasingly, nuclear weapons are offensive weapons in the scheme of things, moreso than defensive weapons. Who can defend a nuclear strike? Who can pull the trigger first? Anyone with said capabilities.

    The newly minted treaty reduces U.S. and Russian stockpiles to 1500 nuclear tipped war heads. Once consumated, between two countries that is 3000 missles, if ever fired their would be nothing left.

    Other equally leathal options that effectively kill, is chemical and biological agents at the tip of a missle. Their is no shortage of one's abilities to execute mass destruction. Nuclear weapons can have a diminished role and no country would be left handicapped to bomb a continent and kill people in biblical proportions.

  • 3 years ago

    The function of guns in the chilly conflict develop into deterrence. This develop into depending on the doctrine time-commemorated by the acronym MAD or jointly certain Destruction. the finest of conceivable eventualities develop into an armoured invasion of West Germany by the Warsaw %. (the former Soviet Union and its *** ecu allies - Poland Hungary Romania etc..). the burden of common forces of the Warsaw %. outnumbered those of NATO and may want to have beaten NATO forces, so the West might want to have resorted to unmarried warhead Tactical Battlefield Nuclear guns to end the upward thrust, at the same time as reinforcements were rushed in from the rustic. the envisioned reaction from the Soviets might want to were to launch strategic nuclear guns adverse to the U. S., France and Britain, to ward off such reinforcing, causing the U. S., France and Britain to retaliate with their strategic arsenal adverse to the Soviets. objectives on each and each and every aspect might want to were missile silos, military bases and major cities, hence after such an change not a lot might want to be left.

  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    If you want to download Counter Strike Global Offensive you can download it here for free: http://bitly.com/1oh9Sy8

    The difference between this game and the original launched several years ago, is that it now includes several game modes that increase the duration of the game. Not all of them are online multiplayer, there are some modes focused on playing against bots in a local area. As always, you will be able to play in classic maps with the same gameplay, but in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive there are new modes.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Magick
    Lv 4
    10 years ago

    In modern warfare, Tactical Nuclear Weapons still have their place and use. Allow me to offer an example:

    Richard Marchinko, former NAVY Seal, (and prolific author) talks about in a book he wrote about the development of the SEALS how the US Navy had a number of small "Suitcase Nukes" in service at the time he was in the service. These small nukes, having several kilotons of yield, were designed to be carried by a torpedo into a harbor and detonated. This explosion would destroy the harbor and sink most of the vessels inside it. However, the explosion would not destroy the city as a whole, and the radiation half life would expend in only a few months, as opposed to years of fallout from larger nukes.

    Marchinko goes on to describe how some of these nukes were small enough to be carried by a man, and could (in a time of war) be parachuted in with a team of seals who were to place the bomb in a location and detonate it from a distance (usually five or six miles by way of a timer.) These nukes, as he says in the book, were intended to destroy transportation centers like railyards, or locations where several highways converged (like Atlanta's Spaghetti Junction *see pic), and thus render traffic to a standstill and cripple the enemy's troop movements.

  • 10 years ago

    They clearly still have a role, however, why not take South Africa's stance and officially become Nuclear-Weapons-Free. See the list of who is still armed at http://WhoHasNukes.com

  • 10 years ago

    You need to remember that just over 10 years ago the Chinese government threatened to destroy Las Angeles with a nuclear weapon if they invaded Taiwan and we intrevened. (This is why we suddenly decided to go ahead with the missile defense program.)

    In addition - nuclear weapons are a means of ensuring that we are never attacked with biological or chemical weapons. The ability to respond to an attack that is in direct porportion to the means we were attacked is a means of ensuring that everybody 'plays nice.'

    There is an old saying: "Buying weapons that frighten potential attackers is cheaper than paying for a war."

  • 10 years ago

    It is naive to think that the Cold War ended because the Soviet Union disbanded. It is even more naive to think that any government other than our own is going to disarm and hope that everyone else complies. I think that we would be better off if nuclear weapons were never invented, but it's too late for that now.

  • 10 years ago

    There should be world wide reduction of weapons, with emphasis on keeping the weapons away from countries that don't already have them.

  • 10 years ago

    I have mixed feelings. They're great for defense (deterrent) and there are a lot of psychopaths out there. The problem is, some of those psychopaths are in our own government which attacks civilians, foreign and domestic. The term "False flag" is not a myth.

    Missing Nuke

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLLyOzPXoQU

    Youtube thumbnail

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.