Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dalem
As military weapons they have been obsolete for a couple of decades - conventional warheads can be aimed with such accuracy and power nowadays that you no longer need to waste a city to kill a bunch of factories, or blast a countryside to mission-kill a battalion of laagered tanks.
That's my layman's view anyway. At least here in the U.S., we've progressed beyond the need for nukes to achieve purely military goals.
-dale
|
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
The U.S has never required the use of nuclear weapons to achieve its military goals, true. However the U.S as it exists today would not be able to operate anywhere near as freely as it does at the moment without its nuclear stockpiles.
Quite the opposite I think if the U.S destroyed its stockpiles it would effectively be at the mercy of other nuclear powers which have been increasing in number lately.
For the U.S at least nuclear weapons are a deterrent, basiclly its telling everyone else 'if you nuke me or my allies, I'll wipe you off the face of the planet' which has proven an extremely effective deterrent for national defence. Hence no other country has attempted to invade or take American territory since the U.S acquired nukes. In the most basic sense nuclear weapons have become a defensive weapon for the United States.
Infact I'm somewhat astonished at how long its been since anyone deployed a nuclear weapon in combat. I'm personally not as optimisic for the future, of all the countries acquiring or attempting to acquire nuclear weapons Iran is the one that makes me the most nervious. The arab muslim population has proven to be extremely unstable lately and combining that religious fanatisim (and the fetish they have with becoming martyers) with nuclear weapons in my opinion can only lead to bad things happening.