Originally posted by Ghostavo
ionia23, who rules England? The Prime Minister or the Queen? As far as I know the Queen has more of a P.R. role. But you understood what I was trying to say, you just forgot to put "in an election". 
Now to continue, you still haven't answered my question. Why have weapons you are not going to use? Your are going to use them sooner or later. Saying you are not going to use them... the "stupidity" in that would be to spend money building that stockpile...
Good point, let me explain.
Nukes are a tough subject for me anyway. I was one of many people over here who saw "Threads" in the mid-1980's: England's answer to America's very watered-down apocalypse film "The Day After". I still have occasional nightmares about it to this day, scared me badly.
In trying to face that fear I studied everything I possibly could about nuclear war. Learned more than I really wanted to. Anyway to answer your question:
What we're living in now is the consequences of yesterday. The point of amassing these huge arsenals of WMD's (might as well call a spade a spade) is the principle of "Mutually Assured Destruction". i.e.: You may be able to destoy us utterly, but we can do likewise. There's no point in fighting a war where everyone loses badly.
Mind you, it's not just the United States with a huge nuclear arsenal, Russia has one too, as well as China. We sort of hold each other at an eternal standoff, though relations are a tad more cordial than they were at the height of the Cuban missle crisis.
There is simply NO WAY to defend a country against a nuclear strike, at least not yet. You might recall Reagan's plan to put a network of missle-killing satellites into orbit which would allow for complete nuclear disarmament of America. We simply wouldn't need the weapons anymore.
Yeah, and I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
If we were to begin deploying a satellite network that would render the whole of North America invulnerable to nuclear attack we'd tip the balance of power scales badly, maybe even enough to tempt our counterparts into firing under the principle that they might not get another chance. Or worse, that we'd be able to fire at them with impunity. Not that I think we would, but what I think isn't important.
It's insanity that got out of control over 50 years ago and this is the end result. Sure, some steps have been made to improve relations, reduce arsenals, control the spread of weapons, etc, and that's fine for Russia, China, and the US, but that does nothing for Israel, France, the UK, Pakistan, India, and North Korea.
Just envision it as two people with guns pointed at each other's head with death triggers on. That's what the face of nuclear deterrence is.
A biological bomb is bad, a "dirty radioactive bomb" is really bad, chemical weapons are right up there too, but nothing comes close to the sickening firepower of a 5 megaton detonation.
The largest WMD ever detonated was "Tsar Bomba" by the former Soviet Union. It was intended to have a yield of 100 megatons. Unfortunately, this bomb would have been so filthy it would have raised the background radiation of the entire planet by 10 times. With some adjustments they brought it down to 54 megatons. The shockwave circled the earth three times and the flash was seen in London. The cloud punched a hole into the upper atmosphere. Yes, explosions can be made even bigger.
The Soviet army detemined that was no strategic purpose to a weapon of such destructive force. No point in territory you cannot annex, ya know? besides, it had to be flown on a slow moving cargo plane. Not exactly dextrous.
Anyway, that's why you build them, so your opponents know what they're up against. M.A.D., mutually assured destruction, what a wonderful acronym....
