I also have to describe the devastation a nuclear war would result in.|||Have a strong, just country that takes a leadership position in the world, and believes in non-proliferation.
There were all kinds of descriptions in the 70s and 80s about nuclear winter, and what would happen if a nuclear war occurred. You can probably Google them.|||i think the idea is usually some type of agreement between leaders of countries. most countries have people that place some value on life. terrorists are the only real risks left. communists were thought to be a big risk years ago before Russia governmetn changed. North / South korea current risks. And terrorists / middle east , who knows what is going on. believe the current warfare might be thought of as more chemical in nature ? not sure if that is better or worse than nuclear sort of a war.
regarding devastation:
we had a book in school / title The Beach , i think. required reading of every student. we then discussed book and wrote papers to document / provide viewpoints
it was basically a story of how a young family coped during a nuclear war. the deaths are slow / painful. lots of description was said to be accurate although the work book was fictional.|||Condy, is that you? Just kidding, the only way to prevent a nuclear war is to keep nukes out of the hands of Rouge nations such as Iran or North Korea. The only way you can ultimately do this is by using military force. If they already have nuclear weapons, attacking them might inadvertently result in them using a nuclear weapon. The President sure has an easy job doesn't he. We should all criticize him some more instead of standing behind him.|||Mutually assured destruction prevented nuclear war for over 40 years. The problem arises when one side doesn't fear the consequences.|||Well seeing as how it has never happened, I'd say the odds are already pretty low.|||One word, deterrence. If you have more nukes than your enemy and yours are bigger, can travel farther, and can cause more damage...then they will probably not attack you.|||ground surface at 3,800 degrees,molten mass.use of cia in covert hits,the best way to eliminate it|||Well we've done a good job so far.|||Use the NRA logic: give everybody a nuke, so that every country can defend itself.
Let's test some slogans:
* If you outlaw nuclear weapons, only outlaws will have nuclear weapons.
* You'll take my nuke when you can pry my hot, glowing hand from it.|||To reduce or eliminate the possibility of nuclear war, keep nukes out of the control of irrational individuals. For example, neither the Soviet Union nor the U.S. wanted to have their major cities destroyed. On the other hand, someone like bin Laden might not care if if a few Muslim cities were destroyed.
The devastation is like any other bomb, just bigger. The radiation aspect is overblown, it is gone in a about a month. But a big bomb can do alot of damage, look for pictures of Hiroshima.|||Most people would go on a rant about nuclear disarmament. Problem with disarmament is (assuming you somehow managed to actually get countries to give up their nuclear arms), you still need to get rid of the nuclear materials. Thus far the only idea for getting rid of nuclear waste is by digging a shallow ditch, dropping it in, and trying to forget about it.
I advocate the construction of a national anti-ballistic missile shield using lasers. But, seeing as how we don't yet have an abundance of lasers yet, use interception missiles, like non-nuclear kinetic warheads. As long as any Nuclear ICBM can be taken out before atmospheric descent (terminal phase), they can be neutralized.
It would depend on the nature of the war, if we're talking typical nuclear holocaust, it could result in human extinction, or at least to modern civilization on Earth due to the effects of nuclear fall-out, the loss of much modern technology due to electromagnetic pulses, or nuclear winter, which is even worse.|||you don't that is a political decision made by politicians
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment