Leah asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 3 years ago

Question About Nuclear Weapons?

I read somewhere that 100 nuclear explosions could make the Earth uninhabitable. Countries have thousands of nukes. So, would you support this plan? What if most countries reach an agreement where the max number of nukes a country can have is ten. That means that in the worst case scenario, 80 nukes would be deployed, which will still reek havoc on the earth, but it's better than thousands going off at once. The conditions are that any country of NATO has the right to check on other countries to make sure that they would not go over the limit. If they do, they'll receive a warning. If that doesn't work, the country will be embargoed. If that doesn't work, the country risks an invasion or airstrikes. It's almost impossible to get every country to agree to this, but let's say that by some miracle they did. Would you support it? Thanks!

5 Answers

Relevance
  • 3 years ago
    Best Answer

    Unfortunately that's not how it works. As the Last Remaining Superpower the US has a very arrogant and unilateral defense policy. If five countries have 10 weapons each, the US will decide it needs to have more than all of them combined. If the USSR can wipe out all life on planet earth 10 times over, the US will decide it needs to have enough to wipe us all out 20 times. We want redundant systems and backups--for instance if Russian nukes take out US ICBMs before they can be launched, we have several nuclear submarines out there right now, and one single nuclear submarine carries enough warheads to hit every city in Russia over 20,000 in population. Nuclear superiority doesn't mean 'We can strike you back so watch out!' It means 'We can destroy you in 10 minutes, before or after you launch nukes.'

    If you tried to pass any kind of treaty like that, there are a dozen 'Tough On Defense' senators and congressmen who will kill it. It would be worse than gun control! In fact any congresscritter who backed it would be attacked by his opponents as 'Soft On Defense'.

    Every nuclear-weaponed nation on earth was happy to sign a No First Use pledge. Except guess who?

  • Anonymous
    3 years ago

    Actually, most countries on Earth want to ban nukes. I would support it. Also, it would take MUCH more than 100 nukes to destroy humans. Much more than we have. Over 10x as much as we have. Many parts of Earth would be incredibly radioactive, it would easily cause over a billion deaths, maybe 2, maybe more, if all nukes on Earth were donated, the only problem is nuclear weapons create radiation, and lots of CO2 and wasted materials.

  • 3 years ago

    A country like Russia for example wouldn't deploy a nuke to the United States because of the fact that the United States would fire one back in retaliation so there is no point giving a max number of nuke's because there is no way that law would exist.

  • 3 years ago

    No countries would agree to that and even if they did they would lie and keep more on hand anyway. I would support it, but I'd also support getting a million dollars to take Jennifer Lawrence on a date, that's more likely.

    • Leah3 years agoReport

      Oh, okay. You edited your answer. Thanks!

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Leo
    Lv 7
    3 years ago

    I'd prefer a max number of zero.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.