what are the causes and dangers of the nuclear arms race?
141616
The causes are simple...to keep a Nuclear Equilibrium. When Russia and the US were actively engaged in the Cold War, there was a very big Nuclear Arms Race, but no real threat of Nuclear War. This is because although we both collected as many Nukes as we could, we knew that we could not fire them because the Secondary strike of our target would decimate us. Whenever the US had more nukes than Russia, Russia would make more nukes to increase their secondary strike to prevent us from making a first strike, then we would make more nukes to increase our secondary strike to prevent Russia from making a first strike and so on and so on. \n\nThe real danger in any nuclear arms race is people like terrorists who do not care to really enter the race and have a lot of nuclear warheads, but only get a few. \n\nI think the real nuclear threat was best said in the movie "The Peacemaker". When Dr. Julia Kelly said to Col. DeVoe, "I'm not afraid of the man who has a hundred nuclear weapons, I'm terrified of the man who only wants one"
747685
You have to learn how to do simple arithmetic, and understand simple physics like the conservation of momentum and the conservation of energy.\n\nThen you will see that the effect of the biggest possible nuclear explosion on the Earth's orbit is like the effect of an insect landing on the Empire State Building.  The Earth has been pushed by radiation from solar flares with enormously more energy, hit by asteroids with enormously more momentum, than any puny little man-made nuclear explosion, and its orbit was still not affected measurably.
446553
Lots of fallout.  LOTS.\n\nHere's a fun fact; the accident at Chernobyl plant released 200 times the radiation of both atomic bombs dropped on Japan.  The radiation reached every corner of Europe.  And that was just one reactor out of four.\nSo a bomb dropped on a nuclear plant would probably be the end of everything within 500 miles.
178530
From the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, it sounds like they need alot of upgrading.  They don't have as many nukes targeted on the USA as i had thought, although one would be enough.
160185
try this website, I just did a search and this came up:\n\nhttp://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html
91551
There isn't any danger. Because IAEA is observing all nuclear activities in these two countries. So, Will there be any danger? But there are some countries that are making nuclear weapons but no one prohibit them of countinuing their destructive plans. Honest!
839879
First off, both are the one and the same.\n\nYou see, nuclear weapons don't kill everyone instantaneously... the victims can linger for years and die a slow torturous death.\n\nWith that said and for that reason, if I had to choose the lesser of the two evils, I would say world-wide nuclear war would have a greater detrimental impact on the world. Not only would the victims suffer but everything else including animals, plants, etc... Not even to mention the fact, the land would become uninhabitable for many many years.
1116836
In reference to another post there is no working star wars program in place, we are just as vulnerable to a missile attack today as we were fifty years ago, now the likelihood of a large scale nuclear attack is much much lower without the soviets runnin around, though it is always possible that by some computer error that a launch will take place from either us or the russian silos, afterwards if we don't convince each other that it was a mistake it would probably lead to a full scale nuclear exchange, now that covers the U.S. and Russia, but don't forget the other nuclear nations out there such as Pakistan and India which are pretty much where the U.S. and Soviets were twenty years ago, so on that side of the planet I would say within the next two years that there is a 20% possibility of a nuclear exchange barring any massive change in policy or major event such as some sort of military incident betweent those two countries. It is possible that there could be a nuclear device smuggled and detonated in the U.S. by some terrorist organisation but that would not lead to a nuclear war, unless the perpetrators of such an attack posessed a nuclear arsenal. Let me just say that with today's great technology a nuclear device does not have to be any bigger than a briefcase and with lax border control and nearly unlimited funding for terrorist organisations in addition to lack of intelligence on nuclear material around the world it is very possible that some terrorist organisation may suceed in detonating a device on American soil. Let's all hope that never happens
872995
There will be no nuclear conflict...look up the numerous scenarios where it nearly happended. People that launch will not launch anything unless the sovereignty of a country is at stake. \n\nEven with a terrorist attack on the continental USA, in whatever form, there will be no nuclear retaliation. Invasions & attacks ok etc yes, but no nuclear bombardment. Not by USA, Israel, or GB etc. Nuclear exchange in Middle East will mean crops will fail in Europe and Asia. How many countries did the Ukrainian nuclear reactor explosion affect years back!!?
778258
It is  a catch 22 situation. If you don't sell arms to others, where does your arms industry go? And if you do, there is a real danger of them ending up being used against you. For example, Pakistan has provided nuclear techonology to North Korea. Now, that it is available, it can easily fall in the hands of terrorists who can use it to make dirty bombs that will make 9/11 look like a school picnic.
424743
It dramatically decreased the chance of total nuclear annihilation, because many of  the thousands of nukes that the Soviets controlled were decommissioned.   It probably increased the chances of a nuclear terrorist attack, because a number of nukes, nuclear material, and Soviet Nuclear Scientists were stolen, sold, or hired on the black market.   This allowed a group with 20-40 million dollars to become a limited nuclear power.   Don't worry about the country with 500 nuclear weapons.  Just worry about the guy who wants just one.
319522
The tactical nukes are under the 50 kiloton ranges, some as low as .3 kilotons, used for fighting advancing armies, or small targets.  \n\nThe strategic nukes, however, will takeout whole cities and cause widespread contamination, in the 100-500 kiloton range. They've built higher kilotons, but supposedly, they've been stockpiled or disassembled.  One or two strategic nuclear detonations, or even 50 would not cause world-wide contamination, its when you get into a full nuclear exchange, between the US and Russia with 1,000s of nukes going off, is when life would be 'unlivable.'\n\nThe W.H.O. predicted in 1982 that "1.1 billion people would be killed outright in such a nuclear war, mainly in the United States, the Soviet Union, Europe, China and Japan. An additional 1.1 billion people would suffer serious injures and radiation sickness, for which medical help would be unavailable. It thus seems possible that more than 2 billion people-almost half of all the humans on Earth-would be destroyed in the immediate aftermath of a global thermonuclear war. ... would probably be enough to reduce at least the Northern Hemisphere to a state of prolonged agony and barbarism." \n\nCarl Sagan made a case that "a war in which a mere 100 megatons were exploded, less than one percent of the world arsenals, and only in low-yield airbursts over cities. ....would ignite thousands of fires, and the smoke from these fires alone would be enough to generate an epoch of cold and dark almost as severe as in the 5000 megaton case. The threshold for ...The Nuclear Winter is very low."
364261
The concern, and it's a fairly legitimate one, is that a nation like Iran, which has had strong ties to organizations that advocate violence against the US in the past, might be willing to supply radioactive materials or nuclear weapons to such organizations in the future.\n\nIndia already has nuclear technology, but refuses to allow international agencies to monitor it's programs, which is a bit curious.\n\n"Developing nations" sometimes cause concern because of the potential to sell radioactive material or even nuclear weapons to radicalists.  And there is also concern that such a nation would build nuclear weapons and possibly use them against a rival nation.  (Pakistan and India are a perfect example of this)\n\nThe bottom line is this: nuclear weapons = trouble.  If more countries have them, there is a greater potential, not only for a nuclear war, but also accidents, contamination, leaking of nuclear secrets and the secret sale of dangerous weapons and materials.\n\nThe potential for all of these is much higher in a country that does not yet have strict environmental and safety regulations and global economic interests that would be badly damaged by international sanctions.
592707
Of course there is no ight or wrong answer to this question, but I don't think that evaluation is right. Particularly in this nuclear imbalanced world created by NNPT, a country like USA that holds atomic weapons can easily defeat another country that does not have nuclear weapons (though I can't think of any country militarily strong enough that USA won't attack without nuclear weapons yet has no nuclear weapon itself). The presence of nuclear weapons can also radically affect the course of war between two nuclear countries. For example, France is militarily weaker than USA but USA may well think twice before attacking France because just before falling a desparate government may well decide to fire off those warheads.
1048093
koreans  aren't a threat, what is a few nukes compared to the 12 000 the US already own? is there any greater threat to the world than The US Star Wars project? I don't think so.\n\nis there a greater threats than a country that already use nuke on another or have an history of violence and coersion on poor people?
453334
Almost all wars involve economic resorces. Ideological subplots abound, however it's mostly resources. The command economy of the Soviet Union was incompatable with the modified free markets in the U.S. and Western Europe.  The arms race was significant but it was only an extension of the economic warfare.
443822
A LOT OF THINGS! There could be cancers, exposure to radiation, brain damage, birth defects. There are alot of chemical factors that are hard to understand but there is no ACTUAL cause. INdustrial chemicals like Vynil chloride could cause it, but thats justlike the radiation exposure. Mutations, depletions of your "brain immune system" hahahhaa can deplete your tumor supressor genes.