Scootrbro
|
  |
| Joined: 12 Apr 2008 |
| Total Posts: 11145 |
|
|
| 03 Jun 2014 05:19 PM |
I mean they did end WW2
on the Pacific side I mean |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
jjj344
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Dec 2010 |
| Total Posts: 12709 |
|
|
| 03 Jun 2014 05:23 PM |
| Well, if they're used in the right hands but if some madman get's a hold of them, well, your doomed. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Jun 2014 11:06 AM |
| Nukes prevent war, actually. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
2013Yay
|
  |
| Joined: 31 Dec 2012 |
| Total Posts: 5299 |
|
|
| 04 Jun 2014 12:11 PM |
| They didn't end WWII. The pressure of the soviet union and the USA did. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 04 Jun 2014 12:12 PM |
"Nukes prevent war, actually."
There are only 2 scenarios when you can have peace with the technology of nukes. 1. Everyone has nukes. 2. No one has nukes.
#LogicMakesSense |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
2013Yay
|
  |
| Joined: 31 Dec 2012 |
| Total Posts: 5299 |
|
|
| 04 Jun 2014 12:13 PM |
| They destroyed many Red Cross buildings, which is today illegal. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Riducule
|
  |
| Joined: 18 Jul 2013 |
| Total Posts: 3271 |
|
|
| 04 Jun 2014 12:16 PM |
I agree with @godofcats, most of our countries these days have nuclear warheads, so it's hard to pressurize someone with the use of nuclear weaponry, however if it would be the opposite, where only so few have nuclear weaponry, these few select countries could wipe out the rest, and this was how it was in the Cold War, I think.
The Conservative Brony who's only 10 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|