asked 57.2k views
5 votes
What about nukes meant that we (so far) haven't had WW3?

asked
User Newbies
by
8.2k points

1 Answer

2 votes

Answer: A nuke is a weapon of mass destruction.

Step-by-step explanation:

Everyone is aware of the potential danger a nuke or multiple nukes pose on the threat to the country, or even the entire human race. Even the aftermath itself leaves the controlled area to be unfit for survival for years or even decades after.

For reference -

  • The smallest nuke - W54, had an equivalent of around 1,000 tons of tnt.
  • The largest nuke - Tsar Bomba had around 50,000,000 tons of tnt.

While the question of morality and ethics come into play when allowing these catastrophic to be activated during war-time, they are often used as a intimidation factor making other countries think twice before attacking them. The most notable examples being the U.S. and Russia.

In regards to a potential WW3, lieutenant colonel Stanislav Petrov is most recognized as having prevented it through his decision of not launching a nuclear strike as a result of a technical malfunction.

answered
User ViTUu
by
7.9k points

Related questions

asked Nov 17, 2018 17.0k views
Siega asked Nov 17, 2018
by Siega
8.7k points
2 answers
4 votes
17.0k views
asked Feb 24, 2018 138k views
BjornS asked Feb 24, 2018
by BjornS
8.4k points
2 answers
1 vote
138k views
asked May 1, 2018 211k views
Priscella asked May 1, 2018
by Priscella
7.8k points
2 answers
5 votes
211k views
Welcome to Qamnty — a place to ask, share, and grow together. Join our community and get real answers from real people.