How did the nuclear weapons affect america?
There was not a single level of society that was not affected by the development of nuclear weapons here in the United States. Nearly every bit of policy in the 1950's and 1960's was in some way related to nuclear arms, the arms race, and the Cold War. One example is the interstate highway system. People look at this as a huge accomplishment for the American people and a boost to the infrastructure of the US. The reason that it was built, however, was to have a means to move troops across the country quickly in the event of nuclear war. The reason that overpasses were built the height they were is because it was the minimum height to have a tank on a flat bed pass under it. The space program is another big example. The US invested heavily in space to ensure that the USSR did not dominate space and develop a platform to launch nuclear weapons from space.
What Country is Responsible for the most and worst war crimes?
Iraq and Iran.
Why don’t we put an international ban on nuclear weapons, the materials used to produce them, and the knowledge needed to produce them?
We cannot un-invent nuclear weapons, no matter how hard we try.And even if the global community agreed to outlaw them, it’s going to be hard for non-nuclear nations to forcibly remove nuclear weapons and technology from the nuclear powers - and it’s going to be even harder for the lesser nuclear nations to disarm the US and Russia. But unless the proclamation is backed up with credible force, nobody is going to give up their nuclear deterrent just because all of the non-nuclear nations think they ought to.Then there’s the thing that uranium is a natural element, its chemistry is well-known, and the steps to process rock to remove uranium are pretty straight-forward. And a lot of the technology is not unique to making nuclear weapons - are we going to ban explosives, for example, and deny ourselves the ability to mine or construct large infrastructure projects? Or give up medical research because ultracentrifuges spin really fast and might be a precursor to uranium enrichment centrifuges?Bottom line - we don’t because we can’t.
What will India do if Pakistan suddenly fires a nuclear missile towards Delhi?
[Non-biased]1.Pakistan army decides to attack India with nuclear missile (as they are less aware of the term 'nuclear radiation') without the permission of their PM or any govt's plan. (Like kargil war, Musharraf captured Kargil without any formal plan)2. By that time India got its S-400(best anti aircraft missile in the world) takes 10 second to respond. Incoming missile alert is activated so it destroys it when within 400 KM of range (It doesn't need govt's approval)3. Indian government hesitates to launch second strike (corrupt politicians are more afraid of war ,despite immense pressure from Defense experts) by that time Pakistan launches two or more missiles which miserably failed due to S-400 and Barak 8(8th strongest anti aircraft missile) Akash and Prithvi.India still waits for President's order(60% civilians Don't want nuclear war)4. Pakistan attacks by air the same way it did in 1971 and that time finally India declares war on Pakistan (If India don't they will surely loose party or President will declare Emergency ).With decisive loss of Pakistan's aircraft upon defensive air retaliation. India already heads to annex Islamabad but as usual NATO,US interferes for assuring mutual dialogues between India and Pakistan.5. Pakistan surrenders to the Indian allies. US puts strong economic and diplomatic sanction and pressure respectively for Nuclear disarmament without letting an option for Pakistan to deny . So after getting much threatening from all over the world Pakistan disarms its nuclear arsenals6 . India by not even touched its nuclear weapon remains a nuclear state(Thanks G.W Bush) and merges into a Global super power nation with its millions of homeless and poverty population.7. India buys S-500 missile (Under development now) from Russia and keeps moving ahead to play with China and Pakistan becomes an absolute team for India to play with.
Why is it okay for some nations to have nuclear weapons and not others? Shouldn't all nations denuclearize?
The international community is effectively lawless; there’s no authority that can force a country to do anything. That requires the actions of a more powerful country or alliance. There’s no question of rights — it all comes down to what a country can get away with. That’s the way it’s been since people started joining into groups.I’m in the camp that considers nuclear weapons to be damned nearly useless, except for perhaps small, special purpose weapons. Of course, the political repercussions of using even those makes them almost useless. So we ought to just get rid of them, right?Well, sort of. The problem is that we can’t really get rid of them. As long as people know how to make nuclear weapons, somebody will. Nobody wants to risk a potential adversary having such power, so you suspect your most obvious adversary has nuclear weapons, you’ll want a few too.It seems to me that in our present day world, the best we can manage is to have small numbers of nuclear weapons as deterrents. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening. We’re working our way back to a new Cold War, and that is a terrifying prospect.
How come the US, Russia, China and other contires can have WMDs,but countires like Iran and North Korea can't?
What's the deal with that? Some countries have enough nukes to wipe out everything on this planet; why don't we see the UN putting sanctions on these countries? Lets take Iraq for example: If Iraq with WMD was a threat to the US and other ally countries, and that gave them (US and allies) the right to invade Iraq, could'nt a country like North Korea, for example, say that the US with WMD is a threat to their security and therefore justify an attack on the US to dismantle their nuclear programs?