Why are missiles called peace keepers if they are aimed to kill?
456596
because, people are stupid ....I would never call a missile peace keeper....
1051232
Top Gun. The missile won't have time to arm after launch if you are too close therefore it won't explode. This is partly because you don't want to shoot yourself down with your own missile exploding. With guns, if the enemy aircraft explodes because the fuel or ordnance detonates, or just plain comes apart you can still fly through the parts and damage your aircraft.
964611
nuclear warheads can be delivered as:\n\n1. bombs (obviously you don't need satellites for this)\n2. cruise missiles (Wikipedia: "The lowest cost system in wide use uses a radar altimeter, barometric altimeter and clock to navigate a digital strip map. Some systems may now use satellite navigation or inertial guidance, but these are substantially more expensive...")\n\nI think ballistic missiles need GPS but I'm not sure. either way we have plenty of nukes that don't need satellites, enough to destroy the world once over, I'm sure.
283289
Its called a pre-emptive strike.  Maybe you look dangerous and they're trying to wreck your chances.
1167183
haha, because theyre afriad of Satan. We keep to ourselves, and will destroy anyone who tries to disturb the peace we've established.
366884
Who told you that,they have nukes but they dont want to use it for...\nmaybe they are dangerous for countris like:Israel ,USA... that they Scare from Iran
244037
Having Nuclear Weapons is a very large responsibility and are primarily used as a deterrent.  If your country isn't stable, isn't secure and can't defend it's nuclear stockpiles then it makes it dangerous for the rest of the world for your country to have nuclear weapons.  Because of the likelihood that terrorist groups looking to get their hands on a nuclear weapon would see your country as easy pickings.
9562
Rocket-powered missiles are known as rockets if they lack post-launch guidance or missiles or guided missiles if they are able to continue tracking a target after launch. Cruise missiles typically use some form of jet engine for propulsion.\n\nMissiles are often used in warfare as a means of delivering destructive force (usually in the form of an explosive warhead) upon a target. Aside from explosives, other possible types of destructive missile payloads are various forms of chemical or biological agents, nuclear warheads, or simple kinetic energy (where the missile destroys the target by the force of striking it at high speed). Sometimes missiles are used to deliver payloads designed to break infrastructure without harming people. For example, in the Gulf War cruise missiles were used to deliver reels of carbon filament to electricity stations and switches, effectively disabling them by forming short circuits.\n\nMissiles which spend most of their trajectory in unpowered flight, and which don't use aerodynamics to alter their course, are known as ballistic missiles (because their motion is largely governed by the laws of ballistics). These are in contrast to cruise missiles, which spend most of their trajectory in powered flight.
1083181
Yes, they call it "targeted killing".  That's another way of saying assassination or murder.\n\nIt has been the Israeli way for decades.\nIt's now the American way.
664396
Those Stinger missiles are old technology.\n\nNew fighter craft have little to worry about from them, as those missile systems are many generations old, in technology years.\n\nMost of them wouldn't work anyway because they have dead batteries. New batteries for those Stingers can be bought on the black market, but there isn't much interest in continuing to use them.\n\nSince the breakup of Russia, the world, including the Middle East and Central Asia, have been flooded with weapons, including more advanced shoulder fired missiles. Today's advanced shoulder fired missile systems use two-stage target acquisition technology, which did not exist with those old Stingers.\n\nBut to confirm your original statement, the answer is yes. We sure did arm those USA-hating and West-hating mujaheddin with USA weapons technology, even when intelligence reports said that these same people were actively supporting terrorist groups on the State Department's terrorist watch list. Yes, it was Ronald Reagan who approved the sales of arms to the Afghanistan resistance fighters.\n\nThe other bad thing is that we also taught them how to use the technology in the first place, so now, even with different systems, they know how to use them.\n\nThat was a huge blunder on Reagan's part which few Reagan supporters acknowledge. He sold weapons to people who were enemies of the USA, and did so willingly.\n\nReagan really took that whole "better dead than Red" philosophy just a tad bit too far. In the final analysis, the Soviets never were our true enemies.\n\nIncidentally, it was Dick Cheney, who, under George Bush Sr, went on "goodwill" visits to Iraq to shore up relations with Hussein.\n\nWe sure do have a troubling past with arming and actively supporting the wrong people.
1186990
Okay first of all don;t worry there missiles are not that sophisticated to actually reach the US yet.  Yet even if they do fire a missile at the US that does have a nuclear war head we would be able to shoot it down before it gets to our shores.\n\nLet me explain there are two types of nuclear missiles \n\n1.  NK has just a regular missile, this will reach a certain altitude maintain that altitude until it reaches it's destination.\n\n2.  The US has are what are called ICBM, these missiles go into the subspace and then come down which make them almost impossible to shoot down.  This was the big scare during the Cold War.  \n\nSo I wouldn't worry about NK they are just looking for attention.
1167539
Nothing is right when it is used to kill.It is not right to kill in order to spread democracy.It is not right to kill because of a political view.It is not right to kill for a belief.\n\nUnfortunately, many don't care what is right and what is wrong.
1185445
The aim is to create a peaceful world.  Its not the super powers that are fighting, its the freakin idiot, religious extremists and little tribes that are all fighting with each other or the super powers.
539147
do not answer questions like this people. It may be our enemy trying to find a way to defeat our equipment.
1124437
The concept is "mutual destruction".  With the exception of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the odds of the US (the West) and the Soviets destroying each other were very slim.\n\nThe concern with gov'ts like No. Korea and Iran having the same technology is that they don't appear to play by the same rules as the existing nuclear states.  \n\nRemember the world shuddered when Pakistan and India joined the club.  It's still a major concern for the world that these two enemies possess such power - especially in Pakistan where the government doesn't control the entire nation.\n\nIt isn't hypocritical for the world to regulate nuclear technology.  What's stupid about the way they handle it is in allowing nations to think that's the only way to gain respect on the world stage.  There is little reward for nations to play by the rules.
991454
no they fire missilessss
812863
lol...i think they will do that.... call every body else as "Terrorist"\n\notherwise they would have destroyed their nuke first.....they just want to keep their nukes and restrained others not to keep them..by saying....."deadliest weapon ...we are still sad after using on Japan twice........ (bull*s*hit)........Just to keep hold on others..