promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted

What are some pros of nuclear weapons?

Nuclear weapons can't be pure evil, they ended WW II very quickly. Are there any other pros of nukes?

26 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    The most surprising pro of the nuclear weapons is the fact that their are in fact "peace weapons". In know it sounds crazy, but if you take a serious look at the facts, you will realize it is so: the fact that all big powers of the world have nuclear weapons has kept them from starting a destroying war since they have appeared. There has been some abuse of power, like in Japan, but in fact the biggest wars have been avoided by the simple fact of the existence of the nuclear weapons. Their are not real weapons, they are the "live" proof of what might happen if we start a big war.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • loux
    Lv 4
    3 years ago

    Pro Nuclear Weapons

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 5 years ago

    This Site Might Help You.

    RE:

    What are some pros of nuclear weapons?

    Nuclear weapons can't be pure evil, they ended WW II very quickly. Are there any other pros of nukes?

    Source(s): pros nuclear weapons: https://tr.im/LIfTE
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Sallie
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    During the insanity of the Cold War, nuclear weapons were seen as a deterrent against Russia and the Russians saw them as a deterrent against the U.S. attacking them. Thankfully nobody got trigger happy and started a war, in which case we would all be dead. But having "mutually ensusred destruction" as we called it makes as much sense as using a hand grenade as a defensive weapon. If two people both have a hand grenade with the pin pulled, they both people get blown up and nobody wins.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Nukes bombs were proposed to be used to blow up mountians to make new roads and wouldn't have to make some long winding road. But I guess the smarter scientists eventualy won the debate over the fallout radiation.

    We do have some small nuclear weapons designed to be used with artillary. But again the colateral damage to inisent civialians would be to high.

    However we do use effectively spent uranium in some of our weapons like the ones on the A-10 wart hog. These do not release the kinds of radiation like a nuclear bomb. The uranium acts kinda like the Iranian Molten explosive devices in that the peice armour.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    They are cool in big blockbuster movies like terminator2

    But in reality i think they are obsolete no government has the balls to threaten mutual assured destruction.

    Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by one of two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash Equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome — nuclear annihilation.

    Those days are gone, too much money to be made these days man.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Strategic Deterrent. Especially on board Nuclear Submarines positioned in locations around the world. No one knows where a U.S. Ballistic Missile submarine is with in 1,000 sq.miles, except those onboard the Sub. If one of our U.S. Nuclear capable Submarines went out into the ocean and declared itself its own country, it would be the third most powerful country in the world. And our enemies know that. So the fact that we could strike at a moments notice with unriveled destruction and annihilation is enough to keep other countries at bay and this was the premise behind the cold war.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    They only have 2 Pros's: 1) The threat they impose and 2) They can take out a very large area at once, which would have prevented the problem the US is in currently since we chose to use "smart bombs."

    That's it. Everything else is a CON! They produce large amount of radiation. They kill tons of INNOCENT people. Just ask Japan! Also, the cost of clean up is immense. But the cost of our military lives is greater!

    Source(s): History!
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Used as a deterrent, they can be quite effective. Witness the ultimate end of the cold war which was brought about, in part, by the fielding of the Pershing Missile System in West Germany. The system was extremely accurate, totally mobile and was constantly being improved and upgraded.

    Thank God we never had to use it but the bad guys knew what it was , where it was and how accurate it was.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    like other military technologies, knowledge gained through their design has helped better mankind. Some have proposed exploding them near threatening asteroids to alter their trajectory in order to avoid an earth impact.

    however, they still remain the greatest threat to the planet, with the most likely use being an accidental launch or terrorist attack.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.