First | Prev || Next | Last
¿Question #975?
ejmowrer: Is nuclear warfare deterrant in the form of the threat of mutual assured destruction a wise move?

ocdspectrum: It keeps the masses distracted about that while the rich get richer.
BOBBYCAN: Have we been blown up yet? No.
ejohnson7: No.
OmegaII: Ask Japan, they should know the answer
Felimid: No - because there's always some egotistical, nationalistic idiot willing to risk pressing the button (the "president" of Iran comes to mind).
Zedsdead: Wise? Hell no. But it also seems to be the least of evils right now.
davidgatheral: No
frontlinegeneral: yes
cgund: ..
Polgara: until the first idiot presses the red button
mtlawson: It worked for the Cold War.
aleo09: sure
lone: really not
DHEK: No. Mutual disarmament is a better solution. Why must we continue to fight amongst ourselves?
KrazyKarlo: Sadly, the prisoners dilema model is applicable to humans. Wisdom rarely intrudes on human affairs outside of the occasion story.
kimba: it seemed to have won the cold war now doesn't it.
MightyMike: probably not in the long run
Beelzebub: It worked for three decades.
Stockholm: dont think its a coincidence its shortened "MAD"...
TheCat: No
WalkerRedEye: good gods no
prolifekilledmywife: I wouldn't think so.
Dweeb: It's worked so far.
SisyphusX: Sorta. But the arsenals have to remain in government hands.
interhawk: no, but it seems to be working
bdeuel: yes
mrspank: It worked, didn't it?
brainrob: Not any more because the threat these days doesn't come from nation states.
Deeghter: Only if you want to erase human mankind from this planet!
LemonyFresh: Perhaps
ZombyDawg: Isn't targeting civilian populations usually called terrorism?
Gregol: No, in fact we were darn close to lossing it all in the 60's
ChaosOrdeal: Apparently it has worked so far.
SiddGames: At the time, it may have been the only move. Fortunately, the Cold War is over.
Mike A: Depends on the game.
shawn_low: No. But that doesn't stop us from doing it anyway.
AbeLincoln: once we've crossed the lines of having nuclear potentional it is the only move.
jasta6: Is any war a wise move, no matter the weapons. We humans are the only animal on the planet that kills for fun! go figure......
flyinghogfish: Seems to have worked so far, but I wouldn't go as far as 'wise'
Tushratta: It did seem to work throughout the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. It may have been MAD, but we're all still here.
ssmooth: Sure, can't you see what a wonderful, peaceful world it's produced?
Dorque: Yup.
javelin98: It used to be, but not anymore.
beakermyers: No, it is expensive and useless. Particularly on the scale we do it. There is no such thing as peace while you are threatening someone. It is just as much a threat to yourself as to your opponent.
melissa: No
GrandpaDave: I liked Dr. Stranglove
Mikebegeta: not really
dakarp: Seems really stupid to me. Too high a risk of a big mistake.
sourwyrm: mm
Lord_Prussian: Yes
skrutsch: My heart says no. My head says, it seems to have worked so far.
The Unbeliever: 42
davedanger: yep
Snappatoon: No. Didn't you ever see 'Wargames'?
Ardos: It's worked for the past 50+ years,... but only time will tell.
bluebehir: Wisdom is merely perception based on relativaty. While it is likely the wisdom in such an act could quite well be questionable, it could also be the answer.
silverthorn11: No, bomb me!
mandj2001: define wise
EYE of NiGHT: No. It's just jobs for the boys.
scriptorum: Is nuclear warfare a detergent?
KnobDoctor: You got a better idea?
jimchris: It was not wise, but it was the best.
rawk: no
heli: no
snoozefest: sure
Cavedog_pdx: It was the best move at the time.
MisterCranky: Of course it is. Without it we're stuck with deterrence in the form of "please don't".
erli: I don't know but your question could use a comma
saulsehy: no
isolated: No. Because people are stupid and they'll blow each other up anyway.
jpact: Yes, within the framework of the late 20th century. I reserve the right to change my answer.
toulouse: Yes
AlorielLelyn: Personally, I would like to see every country get rid of it's nukes. Or that we create some impervious missile shield and SHARE it with the rest of the world.
2amp: it worked for almost 40 years
Gecko23: Yep. You can't just use a carrot, it needs to be tied to a stick.
Cal Mac: Yes
Belash: no
kennyb: It has worked so far , but only because the leaders of the countries with the missiles had some semblance of sanity
gnomehome: Probably not
onky: yes.
rochs77: Once someone has the capability it is the only move.
djflippy: No. It only takes one crazy guy to press a button.
kimbo: Sadly, it is the best deterrant there is and is dependent on the notion that a Nation will not commit suicide. Unfortunately, small nations with nothing to lose or a delusional terrorist organization will not be deterred.
derk: No... it's like saying a gun is a defensive tool.
yossarians: no
Blackwind: It's worked for 60 years now.
darthcliff: Why not?
Grimwold: I'm still on no.
davidme: Yes. Without it, only the good die.
djlg: Hey, its worked so far! But it gets harder the more participants you have.
Eric Haas: Huh?
fsumarc: maybe :-)
haraggan: No
chaddyboy_2000: Huh?
Komodo: Yes
Flyspeck23: No.
Reloaded: naw, cause what if they call your bluff and launch? :)
jaredh: no, we all got really lucky in the 60s.
CortexBomb: There's a term for the issue that's eluding me...essentially the problem is that because there is no way to be assured of the fact that the other side would actually be disarming if they claimed they were that it becomes a positive feedback loop. Having any nuclear weapons is madness from an intelligent perspective, but the only way to help insure peace with them already out there seems to be making the consequences so dire that no one would be stupid enough to use them. This is one of the reasons why programs like the US's new "mini nuke" idea strike me as a very bad idea, the last thing we should be doing is making nukes a useable temptation for heads of state / the military
louiseh: No, its really stupid. And gave me nightmares throughout my childhood.
skelebone: No, because if one side makes a decision to attack, they've made the decision for both.
Ludocrazy: I'm thinking "no"
CDRodeffer: No
BobDodgerBlue: Its worked so far
Shakar: No.
ValJor: No, but we got through fifty years of Cold War with it, so I guess it has some value
jttm: No