Why do we have Nukes?

Lets get real, they are like having a big brother that is a cage fighter.

You get certain speaking privileges. You get a veto of virtually everything.

You cannot get invaded. You cannot be negotiated into vulnerability.

You cannot be coerced.

Nukes are a threshold of legitimacy that far outstrips their reality of use.

Or that is the way it is SUPPOSED to be.


And so I ask, of what uses are our nukes? How should they be configured and aimed?

Under what conditions do we USE them?

What SAY so any other human's have in OUR decision what to do with OUR nukes?

 

To deter nuclear attack by another nuclear state or failing deterrence, to retaliate against a nuclear attack.

Also, to prevent any nation from attempting an existential attack on America by other means.

They should not be "aimed", but rather able to have targetting packages programmed as needed (which is how they work today).

Other than as retaliation against nuclear weapons or to prevent a conquest of America, nukes should not be used. There is absolutely no need.

 

we have nukes to deter others from using them against us or our allies.

 

Now, this whole discussion comes from the idea of some from the right that the reason for not having been able to stop Islamic terrorism is that we haven't been forceful enough with them.

As if we haven't tried operation "shock and awe" before. Now the next step, according to them, is to nuke the whole ME. That will show them, is the thinking.

That we have already killed Muslims at a rate of 300:1 for each US terror casualty doesn't factor into their thinking. If at all, it should be the ME feeling under attack, not the other way round. That is also morally reprehensible to kill a billion+ innocents should not even have to be mentioned.

 

The ME does feel under attack. It's one of the reasons why "help us fight the Crusaders attacking us" is one of their main recruiting propaganda pieces.

 

Why do we have Nukes?

So we can kill people who try to enslave us.

 

Do you wait till the bidding starts? Till you hear word they are getting ready to buy you? When do you nuke them all?

- - - Updated - - -

Do you wait till the bidding starts? Till you hear word they are getting ready to buy you? When do you nuke them all?

 

If aliens invade, or we must blast an asteroid in space or well they could be used for space travel detonating them behind a properly designed craft and well if we didn't have them and other hostile nations do we would be annihilated with them we then have them to eliminate that threat.

 

When you can no longer win a war or prevent conquest conventionally, you use nukes against the enemy's military. If they are smart, they recognize that your back is against the wall and pull back. If they are not, it starts a chain of retaliation that results in the total nuclear destruction of one or both participants.

 

The strategy is called MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction. We keep them so as to deter others from using them

Carl Sagan compared it to two men standing in a room knee deep in gasoline, each threatening the other with a box of matches

Most insane of all is that Donald Trump has asked several times why we cannot use them. If he indeed did, it's HIM we ought to lock up, and soon.

 

Ask the Japanese.

 

Do you think the world would be any less dangerous without them?

 

That's a good quote.

However, in Sagan's scenario, the consequences for pulling the trigger are immediate and certain. For launching a nuke, the consequences have enough delay (especially when you sit in a nuke-proof bunker) and uncertainty that some nutjob may actually try it.

 

It would probably be more dangerous. The possibility of escalation to nuclear war is one of the things keeps major powers from conventional a wars.

 

I think along the same line, for the most part.
But, with states like N. Korea, and Pakistan getting their hands on nukes, that may all change. Let's hope not.

 

Pakistan has had nukes for decades. North Korea is led by oligarchs who live in luxury. Why would they treat nukes any differently?

 

As a last resort and when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.

 

Our nukes have kept us out of a major world war for around 70 years now. The nukes are an insurance policy against any other world power, and it's worked perfectly so far.

 

Pakistan is unstable, and a epicenter of terrorism. North Korea is under sanctions, and strapped for cash. Those are two reasons to worry about N.Korea, and Pakistan being armed with nukes.

 

We have nukes because they prevent world wide conventional war spreading over years and years and wiping out tens of millions of lives as we had in WW2 and WW1.

And why is it important we have the best and most? Because we're the good guys on the block.

Perhaps when Klaatu finally arrives we can get rid of them.

 

Hillary Clinton wants them because she wants to military attack the Russian military and has said so. This means she is truly insane. But then, a majority of Americans already believe she should be in federal prison.

 

We have nukes because we developed the math for it essentially, and we are the only ones to have used it. That power made us the "number 1." If we are "number 1" then we have to... yeah, we have to own, hold, and have that ultimate power of mass destruction, and hold the most of it... My God man, don't let me explain this...

 

Both of those nations have had chemical weapons for longer than they've had nukes. Why haven't they given/sold chemical weapons to terrorists? Chemicals are actually untraceable, unlike nukes.

 

We haven't been forceful enough against islamic terrorism. I'm not saying we should nuke them, but we should definitely kill them where ever they are. But it's of course not just a matter of killing them.. sure, "social conditions" or whatever is a cause for why many join terrorist groups. But the thing is, that while improved social conditions can prevent the growth and spread of extremism, it can't really get rid of that which already is. You obviously need to do both: Kill the existing terrorists, and then improve the lives of people so there will be no new terrorists. You have to do both. Can't do just one because it won't work.

So, we need to kill terrorists where ever they are, and then we need to stay there with a strong military presence to crush any insurgency. But, we also need to make sure that the local government will be stable and strong, so we can eventually leave. We need to make sure the state doesn't fail so people turn to terrorism again.

a hard task? yes, probably. but there's not any other way to get rid of terrorism. We HAVE to basically occupy several middle eastern countries for many years, or this will never end. The sooner we get it done, the quicker we can solve this terrorist problem.

And no, how we handled afghanistan and Iraq is not ideal, and not how I want things done. We shouldn't allow sectarians to rule the local governments.. We shouldn't announce our withdrawal.. We should have no-tolerance of radical mosques and imams.. With e.g Iraq, we should've turned it into a federal state, giving regions great autonomy.

something like that has to be done if we want peace. Or... you could just throw out all muslims and close the border. That would also protect you from terrorism. but we don't really want to do that, especially not people on the left like you. But sadly, those are your options: war in the middle east, or throw out muslims. Or you can choose to just live with the terrorism of course.

 

Umm, you don't need to be a genius to produce chemical weapons.

Apples and Oranges.