Why did the US Army agree to give up nuclear weapons?
- Little PrincessLv 72 years agoFavorite Answer
The decision was made mostly to quell concerns by NATO and their deployment throughout Europe. It was thought that there wasn't much of a roll for tactical nuclear weapons.
That's not to be confused with the strategic nuclear weapons developed and maintained by the US Air Force and Navy.
- Huh?Lv 72 years ago
They're so destructive they have no practical use on the battlefield, all you can do with them is threaten to wipe out your opponent's country.
- lazyslacker013Lv 62 years ago
In all honesty they just aren't useful. For the army to have them they would have to put it in their budget they would then have to maintain them and train the personnel and be responsible for the security. To top all that off they then wouldn't even be allowed to use them without presidential go ahead. For a general not to use a weapon or in the case of nukes not be allowed to use them would be infuriating for him especially while their troops are on the ground fighting and dying. In a tactical sense nukes aren't useful. They are very expensive but they don't discriminate between allies and enemies, like any bomb, but once used they create a dead zone that can't be crossed by living troops. The size of explosion vs the cost and the probable use (hopefully not close air support) make them highly inefficient in small uses. They are only worthwhile while attempting to quickly commit mass genocide and/or end human civilization. Both of which require large numbers of bombs. The resulting radioactive dust created and put in the atmosphere is as likely to poison allies as enemies and that assumes it doesn't get into the upper atmosphere and go global. So I guess what I'm saying is that it doesn't fit their mission set, sop's, and would have to be paid for out of their budget which could go to things they can actually use.
- AthenaLv 72 years ago
That is not the Army's job.
The Army, in the US is run by the Civilian government.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- cosmoLv 72 years ago
The atomic cannon is not an effective modern weapon.
- Anonymous2 years ago
The nukes of the future run on coal
- 2 years ago
Why not? It's their weapons to do with as they plase
- Anonymous2 years ago
Probably to get rid of the logistics involved in keeping and maintaining them.
Don't worry: the Air Force and Navy have PLENTY.
- ?Lv 62 years ago
Maybe they can be disassembled and remanufactured into something far more deadly.