However, I must disagree with abelenky slightly — I believe there is one case
where using a nuclear weapon on terrorists makes sense: If the objective is to destroy a bioweapon.
Not exact matches
Citing current tension from the North Korean administration, Reiss - Andersen added: «We live in a world
where the risk of
nuclear weapons being
used is greater than it has been for a long time.»
Any hypothetical military engagement
where a
nuclear armed country were to be in danger of being completely overrun would change the calculation on whether they would be willing to
use nuclear weapons, but Russia probably would not, for example,
use their
nuclear weapons as a deterrent against attacks against their conventional troops in Ukraine, even if they were in danger of being forced out of Ukraine completely because the retaliation would cost much more to them than what they would be losing.
Given the devastating consequences inherent in the
use of the UK's current
nuclear weapons, we are of the view that the proportionality test is unlikely to be met except
where there is a threat to the very survival of the state.
«We looked at a scenario of a regional
nuclear conflict say between India and Pakistan
where each of them
used 50
weapons on cities in the other country that would generate a lot of smoke,» Robock told LiveScience.
You also agree that you will not
use said software for any purposes
where prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture, or production of
nuclear, missile, chemical, or biological
weapons.