The death penalty, & nuclear arsenals: Are either a deterrent?

[Philosoraptor]

The death penalty is often called a deterrent to the crime of homicide, that's debatable at the very least. Murder is still a daily occurrence. And gigantic nuclear arsenals are also considered deterrents to....something, I'm not sure what exactly.

Many nations have gigantic nuclear arsenals, the U.S. and Russia's being among the largest, what is their deterrent value exactly?

Or is this merely a myth, that having hundreds of nuclear warheads on constant standby somehow deters war, or makes us somehow safer? Or is it like driving a cherry red Hummer, an effort to show who has the largest male member?

Is it o.k. for a nation to have say, 150 nuclear warheads? Is it o.k. for a nation to have just 3 or 4? Is it o.k. for a nation to have thousands of nukes on constant alert?

We all know that there are literally thousands of nukes, many pointed at us, is it the bombs themselves that we fear, or is it just the fear itself? We all know that unleashing all the nukes in an orgy of Armageddon would be a pointless and insane act, and we all know that no one is really all that serious about nuking anyone else, don't we? Does anyone seriously think that Saddam planned to nuke the U.S.?

I get so sick of hearing about how nations unfriendly to us are 'developing a nuclear weapons program' and how that means that we have to make them allow inspectors into their nation to pass OUR glorious qualifications for being a nuclear power. This same bullshit argument was used in Iraq, now they are using it on Iran, which means of course that we will soon attack Iran.

Anyway, are nukes a deterrent or not?

[KG]

1. countries that possess nuclear arsenals aren't interested in peace.

[madokie]

2. No

how can one confess to all their sins and then go to heaven be a detriment, I ask

[Finn Polke]

3. Yes

Yes, having nuclear weapons deters others from invading your country. Having more of them than a potential aggressor who also has them deters the aggressor.

Is there proof showing that this simple logic is flawed?

[jpljr77]

4. No on the death penalty. Yes on the bombs.

The death penalty simply is not a deterrent, there have been numerous studies backing this up (here's one: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=1705). It's simply a punitive measure.

A nuclear weapons arsenal, in my opinion, is a deterrent...to the use of nuclear weapons. The Cold War remained "cold" (nuclear weapons-wise) largely because of deterrence. I mean, come on, if you have 150 nuclear weapons and the other guy has 150, are you really going to launch against him?

Also, there is a lot of misconception when it comes to what "nuking" entails. Nuclear weapons have their limitations. Ultimately, they are just like any other weapon, it's just that the scale is larger. And while "unleashing all the nukes in an orgy of Armageddon would be a pointless and insane act" is very true, that's not really a multiple-release strategy, or the reason countries stockpile these weapons. You can launch, say, 10 at different targets of an enemy and the world won't end. Millions will die, of course, but the world won't just blow up.