sean asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Do you think African Nations must arm themselves and manufacture nuclear weapons for the inevitable?

It has come to my mind some time ago that WW1and WW2 have all happened in Europe and caused by Europeans themselves. Some African countries were involved in the fighting only because they were under the Western Rule (Colonized) so they had no choice. But, with this new are of age we approaching with nuclear weapons stockpiles and climate change there is a chance that WW3 is just round the corner. So, if the inevitable happens and Africans haven't armed themselves then they are doomed to be defeated by the Axis Powers. I really think that countries in, especially, Southern African countries really need to arm themselves because if the war do happen countries would want to use the Western Cape of South Africa therefore we will need to arm ourselves to defend it otherwise we would just have to give it away as an OPEN SPACE, meaning we will just give it without a fight. Anyway i can right a book here if i don't stop now. So, i just want to hear your Opinion on this topic. Thanks.

2 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    If a war is fought with nuclear weapons, both sides lose. I remember Gorbachev commenting that if all the soviet bombs were exploded in their silos - without even leaving the Soviet Union - then most people in the US would die.

    You say that there is a chance that WW3 is near. Then in the next sentence you claim it is inevitable. I really do not see that. If the most powerful counties can pull back from the nuclear option, WW3 is not at all inevitable.

  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    Part of it's without problems that the ones with the energy make the foundations. Nuclear armed countries have traditionally prohibited all different countries from obtaining nuclear guns (usually unsuccessfully - e.g. North Korea, Israel, potentially Iran). Another extra positive point of view is that, for the defense of the complete global, it is vital that nuclear-armed countries have the traditional navy force to shield their guns from sabotage or smuggling. For illustration, if the DRC, or Libya, or every other country with very deficient protection received nuclear guns, it could without problems imply that nuclear guns could input the black marketplace - mercenaries and fingers buyers could embezzle constituents, or without problems pay the rogue country to provide them. So it is on this planet's curiosity to preserve nuclear guns into countries with balance, strong navy assets and powerful protection. Edit: Some men and women are pronouncing that nuclear guns technological know-how is largely to be had. It's precise that the suggestion of nuclear fission is whatever you'll be able to study in a primary-12 months physics direction, and that many (no longer all) of the main points of the primary atomic bomb are to be had via the Library of Congress. But state-of-the-art US nuclear bomb technological know-how ("state-of-the-art" which means something past the primary 2 bombs made and used) is enormously categorized. Saying that that is publicly to be had is like pronouncing that anybody can construct a B2 stealth bomber for the reason that Bernoulli's Principle is to be had in any physics direction. It's viable for rogue countries to provide atomic bombs in the event that they receive the constituents, however they are confined to archaic approaches which can be time in depth and effortless to notice - that's side of the purpose that Iran is not fooling anybody.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.