Can't post any links or articles yet........but the point is, the use of nukes is suicidal, specially on the aggressor party, because he knows he is committing suicide. It will guarantee a pariah status by the rest of the world, instantaneously! Who ever uses them now. If something that can't be used, no matter what......that makes it useless. Does that make sense to you? Strategic disarming precision weaponry is in full development now by the larger powers, where conventional weapons and space based weapons are being developed to initiate a disarming strike and render your nuke pile/ facilities useless. Pak nukes, just like anyone else's nukes are useless to say the least. Not only the fact that they can't be used, but if it comes down to it, larger powers have the ability to disarm and dismantle your nuke capability, not to mention respond with overwhelming nuke attack to totally wipe you out, before you even initiate anything, nuclear attack preparations or such. And you can't match larger powers in that criteria. You have 100's at best and they have 10's of thousands!
Argentina went head on into the Falklands, knowing full well that GB was a nuke state. Did that prevent war?
Dissolution of the USSR happened, when they had the largest stockpile of nukes. Did nukes save the Soviet Union?
Israel is widely believed to possess nukes since the late 60's. Did that prevent the 67, 73, 82 and 91 wars? Did Saddam think of IDF nuke retaliation when he lobbed scuds at Tel Aviv? South Africa's nukes were carted out the back door when the blacks came to power. What happened? Did SA nukes prevent the ANC and Namibia and Angola from taking SA head on in multiple wars?
Could Bush use nukes against Afghanistan or Saudi yahoodi in the aftermath of 9-11?
India/ Pak wars and skirmishes continue unabated. Despite nukes. Full scale wars are not prevented because of nukes, or because conventional war will eventually reach the point of using nukes, but because conventional death and destruction will destroy both nations anyway........there will be nothing left for to use your nukes on. Also economically neither can afford full scale conventional war, what to speak of going nuclear. Both are poor countries.
The dynamics of nuke brinkmanship have been studied and debunked long after the 1962 Cuban missile standoff. It was after this brinkmanship, that finally paved the eventual way for the nukes to be relegated as useless.
Search Colin Powell saying the exact same thing. He commanded 28,000 U.S. nuclear weapons in 1989. His assessment is that they were utterly useless.
Iran controls 4 Arab capitals today, without having any nukes, much to the chagrin of hillbillys or their toadys. Iran also knows very well that nukes can't be used, hence refuses to weaponize its nuclear program. The West is intimately aware of this fact. Iranian sanctions are not due to its non existant nuclear program, but because Iran is a growing imperial power.
How many capitals do you control with your nukes?
Who said they haven't prevent wars and were nukes even present until world war 2 where US used against Japan and that too at the end of the war.
You need to revisit your history class. The reason US and USSR never went to war was because of nukes. This is the same reason US always hesitated in intervening in the Taiwan conflict even when China was not advanced because of Chinese threat of using nukes. In case of India and Pakistan again the reason 2001 remained a standoff and so did 2008 was because of the presence of nukes.
Tell me which two nuclear countries have fought wars and i am talking about direct wars and not proxy wars?
If nukes were so obsolete, countries wouldn't be spending in them so much. There is a reason US and Russia still hold the world's largest nuclear stockpile.
wish you very good luck
