Why are we not talking about what to do if a nuclear weapon is used?
144313
This is a very good question.  Civil defense has not been a hot topic in the US since the 1960s.  It would be a good thing if we got people thinking about how they would survive if all food, water, and electricity was cut off for at least several days.  Dispelling fallacies about the real effects of nuclear radiation would be a good idea.  There are radiation detectors that do not need electricity to function; they are called "scintillation" detectors; it would be a good idea to stockpile them.\nCivil defense is not necessarily limited to mitigating the effects of a war or nuclear explosion.  It is also very useful during natural disasters.\nThe Dept. of Homeland Security has a program for teaching people in a community the basics of first response; e.g. basic first aid, firefighting, crowd control, etc.  That is just a first step, though.
170042
Nuclear energy was originally designed to kill. It got the USA out of WW11 sooner than most expected. It has been killing ever since. Did you know we have not built a new Nuclear Power Plant in app. 30 yrs. why? It's a detrement to society. Do you want a Nuclear Waste Storage Facility in your backyard? No, of course not. Iran for that matter I believe NO Country should be allowed to ever build anything again that creates Radioactive Waste. Did you know your Microwave is Radioactive? Try taking one to the scrapyard. Most scrapyards have Geiger Counters in place now days. Why can't we all ride the green wave? Solar,Wind,Wave Action. To most people it's still a novelty but one day it will be common-place if we can keep the powers that be from destroying this Planet we call Home.Think GREEN! Peace to all.
723054
I so agree, nothings getting done over there except hundreds of people keep getting killed, there's no reason for us to be over there, your so right, we went there looking for nuclear weapons and they still haven't found any so enough already..haven't we lost enough of our soldiers?...we do need to back off and just declare peace before things get out of hand, till then let's just pray...God bless
608439
How could it not be a nuclear war.  A "world" war assumes that differences cannot be settled by political means.  If the object is victory, then can you assume that every means possible would be used to achieve victory.  Do you fight a world war, knowing that you didn't do everything possible to win?  If both sides go to war with the cruel illusion that victory at all costs was the motto, then, of course, nukes will be used.  \n\nIf tactical nukes are the only means to stop overwhelming numbers of conventional armies, then NATO and the US have already committed to that strategy in the Fulda Gap and the 38th Parallel.  Once one tactical nuke is used, there's no stopping the use of strategic nukes.  A chain of events leading to nuclear showdowns, hair trigger responses, and faulty communications will ultimately be the legacy of WW III.
639892
The U.S. has not used a nuclear weapon at all, be it civililian or militarily, since Japan and the end of WWII, a MUCH different time than today.  I have heard claims, however, of people that believe the U.S. has freely, and openly been using "tactical nukes" in the Middle East.  This is not true.  What a lot of people are mentioning is known as depleted uranium.  While it's not exactly the greatest stuff on Earth, it is far from what some believe it is to be--a type of nuclear weapon.  It's actually used in many civilian applications as well.\n\nhttp://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/\n\nAs far as the U.S. having weapons, it's known that we have decreased our arsenal, but at the same time, still have a large amount.  Is it possible that someone could get a hold of them?  Sure, I would suppose, but why bother the U.S. and the military that is surely guarding our stockpile when you could get it for a price just by asking in some parts of the world.  \n\nThe United States will forever maintain a nuclear arsenal for strategic purposes.  It is impossible to believe that if we took the lead and destryoed every one that we had, that the rest of the world would follow suit.  We'd be left unprotected, and the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction--one of the main reasons the Cold War went the way it did--would be eliminated, leaving us naked and extremely vulnerable.  We maintain them anymore as defense, though I truly believe that in this political climate, we will never see the day that the U.S. fires an offensive nuclear attack...I think defensive may even be a stretch.  \n\nThe reason that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons is simple.  They have made their intentions known, and I truly believe that it is simply a matter of time before they place one on top of a missile and fire one into Israel, and one into Iraq (to wipeout any remaining U.S. and coalition forces).  While some believe that Iran is bluffing, and claim that they do not have the technology, I'll leave the bluffing to the poker players, and take the threat of a nuclear weapon coming out of Iran in the near future as a very serious one.
906091
Bombing is pointless they built there facilities with our bombs in mind. Thus any attack would be worthless as the facilities are way underground and well armored. Invasion as Iraq proved is quite out of the question. The best response is to let them have there toys and let them know that they have now made themselves targets for our nuclear arsenal. This kind of deterrence has worked to keep nuclear powers in line before and will again. No matter if the govt is full of religious or political fanatics in the end they are human and don't want to die if it can be avoided.
344032
I would answer you by a similar answer; can anyone beside me see why USA and Israel give themselves the whole right to posses nuclear weapons and prevent others from have them? And just a small reminder; USA is the unique nation over the whole history which has used the nuclear weapons and it has committed the biggest and most aggressive genocide  against hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki of Japan at the end of World War II (in spite of the fact that Japan had announced its surrendering before USA committed its crime which give no justified moral excuses). It was only the desire of showing off, arrogance and terrorizing other nations.
691733
askwrites is an idiot.  In an ideal world that would work, but in an ideal world no one would make nuclear weapons to begin with. \n\nTrue the U.S. is the only country that used nuclear weapons, but do the research and the study. There were many lives saved on both sides by doing so.  An invasion of Japan would have cost millions of lives on both sides. Also, we did not know about the fall out from nuclear weapons was so bad. \n\nPersonally, I don't think any group should be able to build nuclear devices. That's one of the responsibilities of the U.N. I just wish that other countries would step up and do things about the injustices in the world other than the U.S.
108685
wrong cause all unprovoked nucleat attack is stupid.also nuclear weapons kill civilians and not military targets.
287042
thats a logical Q, yes its true that the usa is using double standards when dealing with the nuclear issue,they allowed and helped israel to have it and the usa have a lot of it and in the same time they are fighting any other country who only think of having it even for peaceful use.\nby the way,the usa didnt have any choice or way to stop russia or china from having it because those are powerfull countries and this happened long time ago before the soviet union tumbled,so actually the usa couldnt do anything to stop that,and if they could they would.\nThe usa acts strong ONLY when they deal with smaller and less powerfull countries ,they cant impose there will on strong nation like russia or china,they only do with afganistan,iraq and all small countries that they r sure they cant fight back!!!!!!is this courage???is this democracy???\nif the usa want to be fair with all the world ,they should first destroy all the WMD they have and ask other nuclear countries to destroy there WMD, BEFORE they ask others not to have it.\nNow the point is,nuclear power is the only thing that stops the usa and there allies from trying to impose there will on other countries or think to fight it,thats why evrybody is trying to have it,not to use it against anybody,but to stop others from threatning them.\nso,its very simple,get rid of your WMD first,then ask others not to try to have it.\nthats my opinion from a logical point.
1020454
nuclear weapon should be banned all over the world..even in usa
696075
we appologise for tryign to be the world police and evacuate our military presencse from any place that doesn't want us to be there. \nthen if any thing else happnes to us retaliate with a random nuclear missle strike in teh suspected location of the source. use surpluss military to gaurd airports and border.
72253
While this may not be an official answer it is at least my opinion.  First the U.S. is the only country to ever use nukes in a war.  We dropped two bombs on Japan in August of 1945.  As the first Nation to develope this kind of weapon we have also been the only Nation to ever use it against another.  It is certainly safe to say that we did not know the full ramifications of it's use at the time we used it, this weapon has long lasting effects that were never dreamed of when first used.  When the Solviets obtained nukes both sides built up arsenals to equal each others, by the 60's it was realized that we could not continue to test nukes above ground as we were destroying the land with radiation and doing God know what to our atmosphere. (Green House Effect?, Cancer causing levels of radiation? etc.)  It was felt by both sides at the time that we needed to balance the power by creating equal arsenals of nukes.  We still maintain a certain level of these weapons in order to keep balance and maintain our stregnth.  Today countries that have little respect for the World Community are developing these powers and this needs to be controlled.  The United Nations states that this must be controlled.  Countries that have in their recent history had governments that have been toppeled by revolution or likely to have a Coup are not stable enough countries to have this kind of power.  We in the United States know that we will not be the first to strike with our nukes, however our arsenal is still there to protect us if need be.  If there is anything that the World Community should have learned in recent years it is that the United States has the military weapons to do just about anything we please and with precision.  The main objection of the U.S. to having more countries develope these weapons is the likelyhood of them being sold to a terrorist group or another third party that has less responsibility and accountablity for their actions.
1125582
Powerful nukes like those US used in Japan cities, never.\nBut US is going to make some small nukes to use them in battles.\nThey are going to declare some calamitous battles in future.
62970
THE U.S. has more nukes than we know what to do with.  Any idiotic country that would openly attack us  deserves to die in a nuculear holacost for their stupidity.
1017982
Because it's an extremely destructive weapon with no appreciable use beyond exterminating hundreds of thousands of lives instantaneously. It'd be a horrific war crime to nuke a civilian population.
67954
There is a fine line between nuclear energy and nuclear WEAPONS.  Energy will benefit everyone greatly until a meltdown of course.  However researching nuclear energy and experimenting with it leads to some bad people having volitile materials which COULD BE used for a dirty bomb or full out nuclear weapon.  To answer the 2nd part of the question.. what do you THINK the US will do to stop them?  We will warn them once, ask the UN and get denied, then take matters into our own hands.  I vote move to Canada.