This is going to be my sole post in this thread cos quite frankly AcidHell2 completely negated his own point.

It does not in any way shape of form negate the argument.
This is going to be my sole post in this thread cos quite frankly AcidHell2 completely negated his own point.
While he claims that nuclear weapons are an effective deterrent
i agree its all lovely on paper cancelling each other out -but we just decided that we are at war for the essentials of life like water, fuel and room to grow food not some crappy political reason or ideology. Its a simple war of atriction (cantspell )
anyway im starving - i have a diff opinion in their worth.
What do you think the cold war would have been called if nuclear weapons didn't exist?
you think it will result in nuclear war - and you think we win - anyone wins..?? get a grip - you lot are too alpha.
Yeah that was sort of my point...
NB. lets not forget u.s has already used nuclear weapon x2.
Japan probably would have used them. I.e. no surrender
The point being that if Japan had nuclear capabilities at the end of WW2 and America knew about it then America wouldn't of nuked them.
Supporting the conclusion that MAD works and it's a deterrent.
No Japan WOULD have used them
My biggest worry is when a country gains nuclear weapons and their leader is happy to sacrifice him/herself and country either through madness or religion. Nuclear weapons only work as a deterrent whilst the otherside don't want to be blown to smithereens, as soon as they don't care it's game over.