Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post - nuclear weapons are terror weapons by definition

Mr.Vicchio · May 23, 2005, 06:47 pm

The thing about nukes is, they don't fit one definition.

For the entire bredth of the cold war, nuclear weapons kept the peace. When the USA was the only nuclear wielding power, the USSR was afraid to make a move, scared to provoke a nuclear holocaust on themselves. When the Soviets detonated thier first nuke, America was then afraid. It's actually a miricle that we didn't invade the USSR, sending battalions of troops in behind bombers laying waste to the entire USSR. Had we the ability to launch ICBM's... I think we may very well have done so.

Today, each nuclear country, well legal nuclear country, keeps thier weapons to detter war. Russia can't fight as she once did, and relies on her nukes to keep primarily the Chinese from expanding into Siberia. Conversly the Chinese are nuclear armed to keep the USA from interfereing directly with Taiwan, and to keep Russia from firing a pre-emptive strike.

Same thing with India and Pakistan, the two countries are ready to go to war tomorrow, but both fear annhilation.

Western European countries have nukes, but those were mostly to deter the USSR... they really serve no purpose anymore.

The use of a Nuclear Weapon is purely political, even the use of a "bunker buster" deep earth low yield weapon would cause an uproar like you haven't seen.

The wild cards are Iran and NK. Iran could theoretically launch a missile above the USA and send the entire country back to the 1900's. NK's best bet for a nuke use would be to hit US bases in Japan.

But terrorist weapons? No, that's a simplistic and errent view of the weapons.

May 23, 2005, 06:47 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
Mr.Vicchio Navy Veteran Location: Texas Posts: 6,031	The thing about nukes is, they don't fit one definition. For the entire bredth of the cold war, nuclear weapons kept the peace. When the USA was the only nuclear wielding power, the USSR was afraid to make a move, scared to provoke a nuclear holocaust on themselves. When the Soviets detonated thier first nuke, America was then afraid. It's actually a miricle that we didn't invade the USSR, sending battalions of troops in behind bombers laying waste to the entire USSR. Had we the ability to launch ICBM's... I think we may very well have done so. Today, each nuclear country, well legal nuclear country, keeps thier weapons to detter war. Russia can't fight as she once did, and relies on her nukes to keep primarily the Chinese from expanding into Siberia. Conversly the Chinese are nuclear armed to keep the USA from interfereing directly with Taiwan, and to keep Russia from firing a pre-emptive strike. Same thing with India and Pakistan, the two countries are ready to go to war tomorrow, but both fear annhilation. Western European countries have nukes, but those were mostly to deter the USSR... they really serve no purpose anymore. The use of a Nuclear Weapon is purely political, even the use of a "bunker buster" deep earth low yield weapon would cause an uproar like you haven't seen. The wild cards are Iran and NK. Iran could theoretically launch a missile above the USA and send the entire country back to the 1900's. NK's best bet for a nuke use would be to hit US bases in Japan. But terrorist weapons? No, that's a simplistic and errent view of the weapons. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" is still being challenged to this day, but by consensus Global Warming is a fact... that's REAL science at work, why didn't Albert just go that route?