If every country in the world had weapons of mass destruction, would any country still have a military?
February 26th, 2010 by eranio
I mean what would be the point of having an army if neither side can win or lose, since if in conventional war one side wins and the other loses, the loser will see that his existence is threatened and would use his weapons of destruction. So neither side can take over the other.
So is it possible that if every single country in the world got weapons of mass destruction all armies in the world would disappear(or at least be reduced in size by 90%)?
Posted in military weapons
February 26th, 2010 at 5:34 am
Militaries are still a very important component. Believe it or not, every country that has a nuclear weapon doesn’t want to be the one responsible for causing humanity to go back to the stone ages.
Also, minor things like border skirmishes and more complicated things like fighting terrorism and pirates require able militaries.
A more sinister aspect of it, is having an after shock military. In the Cold War, the docterine that the Soviet Union followed was the assumption that after a nuclear exchange, they would utilize their military to roll over whats left of any territory and claim it.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:34 am
Yes, because all the armies in the world would probably be hit by those weapons of mass destruction. Remember, it only takes one insane leader actually launching a nuke to start a war.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:34 am
Yes.
Because nuclear war is such an extreme measure, it’s important to have a military that can operate with more finesse.
For instance, say Russia annexes Georgia. Then more and more former Soviet states. Then Europe. If your only option was all out nuclear war at which point would you launch?
I imagine they could push it really far if your only possible response was nukes.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:34 am
Subs still exist,