“The nuclear war could destroy whole world, and no one wanted that. So, there was no direct army conflict between two big countries during The Cold
War.” I can comprehend that, but this idea makes state’s foreign policy difficult and ‘nuclear deterrence’ doesn’t make any sense for me.
Through movie “13 days” everyone who were in the white house was very afraid about the nuclear war, and careful about holding press conference, negotiating with USSR to warning to stop ships which was currying missiles.
However, number of missile was not enough to attack every U.S. city. That was just because U.S. government was thinking that nuclear war was once and position of nuclear weapons made advantages and disadvantages. If U.S. government hadn’t care about that, it might have been same situation of when
U.S. brought missiles into Turkey. At the moment, all they needed was to start taking and stop doubting each other. So they didn’t have to waste their time. I think that how to maintain their military power is more important than how to use the power for realists, or they might not have enough power when they need.
On the other hand, image of abilities of nuclear weapons is not correct.
Weapons made by technologically developed countries like U.S., U.K. and France may have strong power, which could affect huge area, but I don’t think any states can produce them. Almost all of nuclear missiles made by developing countries can destroy just a part of area, but image of them is strong as well as developed counties’ one. So, we don’t have many options to let countries like
North Korea, and Iran stop innovating their weapons. Many people are imaging that they can attack our town anytime they wanted, but it’s not true. Nuclear weapons are just arm not magic wands.
When I look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki where USA bombed 60 years ago, I find out that more that a million’s people living in either of cities, and their economic capacities are more than countries in Africa. To say the truth, economic and population of both cities are bigger than my home-prefecture.
Moreover, economic scales of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are more than that. That tells us that how excellent human’s effort to rebuild their town was. So, I don’t think that nuclear arms can destroy whole world, so that nuclear deterrence doesn’t work.
Especially for terrorists, they don’t have any specific bases. No state can revenge against nuclear attack by terrorists. So nuclear deterrence doesn’t work. Furthermore, I think that’s why they attacked the world trade centre and the pentagon, and still fighting against U.S. in Iraq. They are not worry about avenge by U.S. On the other hand, public opinions in U.S. and other developing countries are considering about nuclear deterrence. That may apply importance of nuclear weapons for terrorists and help them.
This article reminds me one movie "THE SUM OF ALL FIRE". In the story, terrorists bought a nuclear bomb and used it to let Russia and United State fight against each other. I thought directors of the movie are very smart. Terrorists have just a bomb, so they can't destroy all cities in U.S. but they use it to destroy cooperation between two big countries. It could be one of the ways for terrorists to fight against big countries. As a result, U.S. and Russia didn't fight in this movie. I think main reason is that American citizens like happy-ending-movie and cool-hero who attack evil, but there is another reason. It is nuclear deterrence. Both of presidents in Russia and U.S. didn’t attack each other directly soon after terrorists explode a bomb. That’s because both of them know the nuclear war is end of the world. They don’t want to do. So, hero had time to solve problems, and it was going to happy ending.
War.” I can comprehend that, but this idea makes state’s foreign policy difficult and ‘nuclear deterrence’ doesn’t make any sense for me.
Through movie “13 days” everyone who were in the white house was very afraid about the nuclear war, and careful about holding press conference, negotiating with USSR to warning to stop ships which was currying missiles.
However, number of missile was not enough to attack every U.S. city. That was just because U.S. government was thinking that nuclear war was once and position of nuclear weapons made advantages and disadvantages. If U.S. government hadn’t care about that, it might have been same situation of when
U.S. brought missiles into Turkey. At the moment, all they needed was to start taking and stop doubting each other. So they didn’t have to waste their time. I think that how to maintain their military power is more important than how to use the power for realists, or they might not have enough power when they need.
On the other hand, image of abilities of nuclear weapons is not correct.
Weapons made by technologically developed countries like U.S., U.K. and France may have strong power, which could affect huge area, but I don’t think any states can produce them. Almost all of nuclear missiles made by developing countries can destroy just a part of area, but image of them is strong as well as developed counties’ one. So, we don’t have many options to let countries like
North Korea, and Iran stop innovating their weapons. Many people are imaging that they can attack our town anytime they wanted, but it’s not true. Nuclear weapons are just arm not magic wands.
When I look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki where USA bombed 60 years ago, I find out that more that a million’s people living in either of cities, and their economic capacities are more than countries in Africa. To say the truth, economic and population of both cities are bigger than my home-prefecture.
Moreover, economic scales of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are more than that. That tells us that how excellent human’s effort to rebuild their town was. So, I don’t think that nuclear arms can destroy whole world, so that nuclear deterrence doesn’t work.
Especially for terrorists, they don’t have any specific bases. No state can revenge against nuclear attack by terrorists. So nuclear deterrence doesn’t work. Furthermore, I think that’s why they attacked the world trade centre and the pentagon, and still fighting against U.S. in Iraq. They are not worry about avenge by U.S. On the other hand, public opinions in U.S. and other developing countries are considering about nuclear deterrence. That may apply importance of nuclear weapons for terrorists and help them.
This article reminds me one movie "THE SUM OF ALL FIRE". In the story, terrorists bought a nuclear bomb and used it to let Russia and United State fight against each other. I thought directors of the movie are very smart. Terrorists have just a bomb, so they can't destroy all cities in U.S. but they use it to destroy cooperation between two big countries. It could be one of the ways for terrorists to fight against big countries. As a result, U.S. and Russia didn't fight in this movie. I think main reason is that American citizens like happy-ending-movie and cool-hero who attack evil, but there is another reason. It is nuclear deterrence. Both of presidents in Russia and U.S. didn’t attack each other directly soon after terrorists explode a bomb. That’s because both of them know the nuclear war is end of the world. They don’t want to do. So, hero had time to solve problems, and it was going to happy ending.