What IS the "last resort" when it comes to using nuclear weapons?
489089
Its basically a deterrant to keep other nations from using them.  So say for example, Iran nukes Israel, then the other club members would be required to obliterate all of Iran as punishment.  Even in the afghanistan mountains, the US only used conventional bombs and not nukes.
566166
Wrong Buddy. Remember you have some crazy people who will do anything to get a nuke in their hands. Anyone from terrorists, to warlords. The civilized world, notice like the US, France, Britain, and so forth, use their nukes as a deterrent. You know u nuke me, I'll nuke you back. Crazy countries like Iran just wants nukes to WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH!!! So therefore, it is in the best interest of the civilized world that certain countries contain and hold nukes.
363804
Probably any country that we deem as a nuclear threat to us. That would be the best logical guess, because factually you'll probably never know, it's probably Top Secret. But I bet we are atleast aimed at China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba..haha...and places like those.\n\nI heard for every nuke that is shot at the U.S in a nuclear strike on our soil we will shoot seven for every one that the enemy shoots.
1157223
Hey EBP, welcome to my fair country! Yeah lots of stuff about nuclear s*it at the moment, Tony Blair thinks it is our next big source of energy and there's a lot of arguing going on.\n\nAs for nuclear weapons I really don't know what's going on, but I don't really see why we need them- if we didn't have them, nobsoy would suddenly think, 'Hey! The UK have scrapped their nukes- let's bomb them!', because we still have friends overseas who would step in and push the button for us. \n\nNuclear weapons are a thing of the past. My opinion, for what it's worth, we all learned from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nobody will ever have the balls to push the button again as I think it really would mean the end of the world.
281181
While it is not preferable to believe that Nuclear Weapons will ever be used again it is not a practical stand to take.  I believe that some country that really has no idea what the actual outcome of using these weapons will mean to all the people of the world.  I believe that it will be done by a renegade country such as Iran or North Korea, however North Korea seems to get what they want by having these weapons without using them.  Iran should they develop them would be a good choice to use them as hey have stated that is they're intention.  Should an attack come from any country it is almost a certainty that they will be attacked with the same type of weapons.  These actions could change the entire balance of nature and speed up our declining ecology.
357209
Absolutely not going to happen.  We've signed treaties left and right saying we won't use nuclear force.  The US has absolutely bent the rules when it comes to foreign relations but they absolutely would not completely abandon them.  With that being said, I predict a high probability of them using force OTHER than nuclear force...
1139810
Why would they want to?\n\nThis sort of conflict could easily end up being nuclear.  Anyway all that would be left if they went to war was a large region of the world turned into an unstable danger zone.
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.
81868
Between those two, a preemptive strike would be best. We want to hit them BEFORE they have nukes, not after. But personally if I were running things I would warn them and then launch air strikes and special forces actions all across Iran's military bases. Hopefully we would cripple their nuclear programs and their military, and they would back down.\n\nIf not I'd want the EU to get my back, I'm tired of fighting alone. And I wouldn't topple the government--the last thing we need is another Iraq. THe best thing we can do is teach them a lesson, and make them back down.
986692
The US has thought of itself and the world's peacekeeper or policeman since the end of World War II. Nuclear proliferation is a problem whether or not the US keeps its arms. From the end of World War II until the beginning of the Bush administration, the US actively sought to limit the spread of nuclear arms through peaceful means. Bush's willingness to use the military before diplomacy is tried is an aberration.
779885
Think of the US Military is a tool or weapon. It is probably the best weapon with reguards to; power, technology, speed and will to fight and win. BUT..... it is always the person holding the weapon that makes the true difference. If the proper person is incharge of the US military there isn't a force on Earth that can beat it without resulting to nukes. So, I'll ask a question back:\n\nIf you were in trouble who would you hand this weapon to, to save your butt? A politician or a General?
522955
with EMBARGO act :Stop our Export-Import relations to america...Build Nuclear and War technology Instalation for be ready if American want attack us cause it...use and love ours product and we have to be a courager for say to them : GO TO HELL with Your AID ...!!
1143660
Too late to stop another 'super' power...they've achieved deterrence.....ie, the ability to defend itself through nuclear deterrence.  Since they are not committed to a policy of national suicide, don't look for them to initiate any preemptive strikes.  Their threat is entirely economic, soon they will be taking over the world markets...just watch.
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.
20185
Only if we're hit first, then there will be no choice. Getting nuked and not sending one back would send the wrong message to other nuclear armed countries.
774531
A nuclear weapon is a weapon which derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions of fission or fusion. As a result, even a nuclear weapon with a relatively small yield is significantly more powerful than the largest conventional explosives, and a single weapon is capable of destroying an entire city.\n\nIn the history of warfare, nuclear weapons have been used only twice, both during the closing days of World War II. The first event occurred on the morning of August 6, 1945, when the United States dropped a uranium gun-type device code-named "Little Boy" on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The second event occurred three days later when a plutonium implosion-type device code-named "Fat Man" was dropped on the city of Nagasaki. The use of these weapons, which resulted in the immediate deaths of around 100,000 to 200,000 individuals and even more over time, was and remains controversial — critics around the world charged that they were unnecessary acts of mass killing, while others claimed that they ultimately reduced casualties on both sides by hastening the end of the war. This topic has seen increased debate recently in the wake of increased terrorism involving killings of civilians by both state and non-state players, with parties claiming that the end justifies the means (see Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for a full discussion).\n\nSince the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, nuclear weapons have been detonated on over two thousand occasions for testing and demonstration purposes. The only countries known to have detonated such weapons are (chronologically) the United States, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, France, People's Republic of China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Various other countries may hold nuclear weapons but have never publicly admitted possession, or their claims to possession have not been verified. For example, Israel has modern airborne delivery systems and appears to have an extensive nuclear program with hundreds of warheads (see Israel and weapons of mass destruction), though it officially maintains a policy of "ambiguity" with respect to its actual possession of nuclear weapons. Iran currently stands accused by a number of governments of attempting to develop nuclear capabilities, though its government claims that its acknowledged nuclear activities, such as uranium enrichment, are for peaceful purposes. South Africa also secretly developed a small nuclear arsenal, but disassembled it in the early 1990s. (For more information see List of countries with nuclear weapons.)\n\nApart from their use as weapons, nuclear explosives have been tested and used for various non-military uses.
527009
Good job buddy, now the goverment knows you are looking for AK57s.. why dont you ask: how to build a nuclear weapon? next time.. haha