Quote
Originally posted by: Warbler
forgive me for being stupid but what does "MAD" stand for?
The ironic thing of about Nuclear Weapons is that by somtimes they prevent wars. Think about it, why is it that the cold war btw the USSR and the USA never became a full blown hot war? Because each side knew that if they went to war it, it would only end it one way by both sides firing their nukes and destroying both nations. There was no way a either side could win a war against the other and to go war with the other was to commit suicide. If the nukes weren't there, each side might have been more temped to go to war because there would have a chance of victory. I am not saying that that justifies the existence of these terrible devices but it is ironic.
Hehe, essentially you did all but spell out the acronym. Mutual Assured Destruction.
The only point on which I disagree is this: even if a rogue nation has a nuclear weapon, we are by no means weakening our defense by getting rid of our Nuclear Weapons and those of other willing nations. The clear question is this - if September 11th had been a nuclear strike by a terrorist organization (essentially only changing one element) would a Nuclear counter attack have been called for by the US? If so, on what nation? Do you see what im saying? Modern day Nukes are WAY stronger than the WWII era's Big Boy and Little Jon. There is no strategic use for Nuclear weapons now, aside from the afformentioned MAD war avoidance.
EDIT - With regard to my hypothetical situation about September 11th; I acknowledge that if it were a nuclear attack the situation would be completely different. It is sooooo far beyond reasoning what would have been done. I mean honestly, if it had been a modern Nuclear weapon detonated...the destruction would have been instantly in the hundreds of thousands (upwards of half a million I would venture) the climate of the ENTIRE world would change. I imagine even the French would concede that our retaliation would be necessary. Sorry, no offense intended there. But the question still exists of whether or not its intelligent, or even prudent, to retaliate with a nuclear weapon. Im not sure the effect of two modern nuclear weapons on the environment, but im pretty sure green-house gas would take a back seat.