after all you cant possibly fire a single nuke with any success at all without one
131649
7 satelites at least.\nFiring nuke? not necessary..the nukes are carried by vehicle.... totaly undetectable....and so much more cheaper...
475162
The only Muslim nation with a ready nuclear program.
656863
The US missile defense system has not yet been tested, so no one knows if it would actually works if someone launched a couple of ICBMs at the US. The US government has said it will not use the N. Korean missile launch as an oppurtunity to test it's defense system, which I find somehwat odd. Why not try it out? Also, the missile is aimed at sea, not land, so N. Korea is not actually going to nuke the US. The main issue in defending against nuclear missiles is their speed. It's hard to hit something moving at 14,000+ miles an hour that is the size of a space capsule. Also, a nuclear warhead that is shot down does NOT detonate. Nuclear weapons require exactly timed fuses to explode. Even if somehow it did go off, the explosion would be so small as to have no long-term effects.
12684
It all depends on the country and the number of missiles with the nuclear warheads on them. It the country only had about 10 bomb it would definitely be possible. A country like Russia or China with 1000s of warheads it would be nearly impossible.
675623
no state will let them have a gun of any type
593148
This is a very difficult question.  Yes, every country has the right to nukes, it is only fair.  However, that being said, every country having nukes is going to lead to an apocolyptic war, so it is in the interest of the entire world to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
170947
It would only take one, if you shot it fast enough from a cannon
292618
Again, there's no point in even addressing what political issues you're implying, because it's a fact that Iran can not and will not set off a nuke here.  That would be considered an act of nuclear war, and we would retaliate with an unbelievable amount of nuclear firepower, which would squash Iran like a tiny bug under a giant boot.  You don't really want to enrage 300 million patriots backed by a trillion-dollar, apocalypse-bringing nuclear arsenal do you?
606592
only way is to complete set of challenges theres no other way
665611
no 1 has any ans , it can b true cuz nuthin is impossible
437958
Aren't you glad you had a choice as to where you were born, unlike all the innocent civilians that a nuclear strike would kill. I may not be a big Bush supporter but you and your first responder need to grow up and realize nukes kill indiscriminately, not just those in power.
636796
No, be nice, but Reagan couldn't make it work. We're testing a system aboard a mod 747, and ground based systems, but nothing powerful enough yet to penetrate the atmosphere. Other anti-missile missile systems being tested for regional defense. Japan is partnered with us on that among others.
256526
hell yeah - do not entertain any other thought
525522
you could in theory create infinite power and with infinite power would soon come infinite energy weapon. For instance You could power every building on earth forever. Also you could create a laser that if properly cooled could destroy anything even things in other galaxies. Also you could make a reactor that would overload and could theoretically be stronger than a super nova. Basicly ultimate doomsday weapon. This is greater than 100% efficiency machine. We all would die. Basically imagine the nuke but one that destroys the universe. The power would be exponential so in a mater of days you could destroy everything once again We Would Be Dead Within 2 Years.
319340
its one in a million chance.
674380
I think the navy and Air Force would always have the upper hand, they have the nukes!
206259
Yes, Seneca said that.  Interesting that you would quote him. Do you know what his point was in saying "Be careful that your enemies dont get your weapons"?  Sounds a lot like that quote is very much in support of limiting nuclear proliferation Would it be best if nobody had nukes?  In the 50 years before nuclear weapons were invented, over 100 million people were killed in wars.  And in the 60+ years since, is that true?  If the US destroyed all of it's nuclear weapons, do you seriously believe this would end the problem?  That countries like North Korea and Iran would generously quite trying to build them?  The US, along with the EU, is trying to stop other countries from building nuclear weapons.  Are you trying to say that because the US, France, and the UK, among others, have nuclear weapons, that they should not try to stop proliferation?  Are you saying that the US and those other countries should get rid of their nuclear weapons, and thus would miraculously cause everyone else to stop building them?  Think about it-the US is hated by many powerful countries.  If the US got rid of their nuclear weapons, would that tend to make those countries more eager, or less, to build a weapon that, once the US had none, could aid these other countries in actually defeating the US on a battlefield?  Think through your argument- The US having nuclear weapons may be a problem, but it is unrelated to nuclear proliferation.  And, the US is not leading the battle to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the EU is.