Do you think because of nuclear weapons no country would attack nato directly? Or would they gamble that we wouldn't use them and invade?
- MajorArmedManLv 74 years agoFavorite Answer
Yes, attacking NATO nations would mean a full nuclear retaliation from the United States if the case of total annihilation is present. The U.S. Air Force in the UK, Belgium, Poland, Ukraine, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey have stationed nuclear weapons in these countries should there be a total war or a nuclear strike, as well as the U.S. Navy which is also armed with nuclear weapons and patrolling the Mediterranean Sea, Persian Gulf, and North Sea. If someone goes to the point of total annihilation or using a nuclear weapon, then the U.S. would fire nukes in effort to protect friendly nations and interests. The only way to win is not to play the game.
- AdLv 64 years ago
What's the USE of nuclear weapons?
We aren't talking Hiroshima / Nagasaki bombs, we are talking WAY stronger weapons. And they are problematic because, well, if Russia nuked Europe, they'd get fallout blowing their way, the rotting corpses would be a source of diseases for a very long time (because you can't clear the land when it's highly radioactive) and so on.
The bombs on Japan helped end the war, but modern nukes won't END war, they'd end all life on Earth. Because the systems will launch every nuke there is right after - actually probably before - the first launched nuke hits.
But there is a more important reason; we need eachother. Europe needs food imports (US grain, South American meat and soy, Russian oil and gas) and a war with Russia would mean LIGHTS OUT; no more Russian oil and gas (Nazi Germany had that problem when they broke their treaty with Russia, literally the day after a huge grain train from Russia arrived in Germany - they needed so many Russian supplies).
And HEY, what are those terrorist attacks (in France and elsewhere) BUT attacks on NATO? Nukes cause some fear, but the whole POINT of terrorism is to create fear by staging unpredictable attacks on civilian targets. It's almost the same as with those nukes; NOBODY can really deal with nukes so they are in fact useless. And faced with terrorists, armies (and thus NATO) are pretty much useless too.
- SatanLv 74 years ago
They would probably use civilians as a human shield whilst they attack. Then, if/when they fail to invade, they can wail that all their civilians are injured and that NATO are evil incarnate
Nuclear weapons are a strong deterrent
- frombrumLv 74 years ago
I think they would not use their nuclear weapons to invade
having nuclear weapons doesn't stop an invasion otherwise the UK would have nuked Argentina over the Falklands
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- yLv 74 years ago
the established power players understand it is a no win situation. the crazies on the hand, really don't care and some. believe it is an honorable way to die anywyas.
- Anonymous4 years ago
russia and china have nuclear weapons. that is why russia and us are in a proxy war in syria.