A s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s ss s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s ss s ss s s s s s s s s s ss s s s s s s s s s s
Gf fb b b b b b b b b b bb b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b bb b b bb b b b b b bb b b bb b bb b bbb bb b b
These nukes are s I l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l y y y y af heeeeheeee
If we were to use these said "nuclear weapons" then other nations that have them as well can launch an almost immediate re-strike on us and thus creating a nuclear war which would result in a now win situation with other nations that don't/didn't have a problem with our nation
Nuclear weapons have become obsolete. As nations now days will not use them against each other as they are aware of the nuclear holocaust that will ensue. However, the problem is nuclear weapons still may be used by terrorists. This problem however will not be remedied by nuclear deterrents as terrorists do not care, and they are not a country so throwing nuclear weapons at a country for a terrorist behavior is irrational. You may even have to nuke yourself, and that's just weird.
The only way the United States remain safe is from its nuclear deterrent known as the sword of Damocles. With nuclear subs position all around the world, we have the ability to vaporize 95 percent of the world's population in 30 minutes And 100 percent in an hour. This keeps rogue countries in check such as North Korea or Iran.
No, nuclear deterrence is not irrelevant, because the severe consequences and loss of human life awaiting any nation that decides to use nuclear weapons acts as a powerful inhibitor of use of nuclear force. If a nation believed there would be no consequence to its use of nuclear weapons, it would be more likely to use them. Nuclear deterrence is important because if a nation knows it will face consequences, it is less likely to use nuclear force.