What are some humanitarian benefits of nuclear weapons?

[Boojatta]

Nuclear weapons technology already exists and is not likely to be forgotten any time soon. So you could argue that it doesn't matter whether or not there are any benefits. Even if there are no humanitarian benefits for people in general, the technology is here to stay.

However, what if tax dollars in various countries support research towards the creation of weapons even more destructive than existing nuclear weapons? Is there such distrust among nations that competitive pressures force them to continue to develop more destructive weapons that everybody would prefer to never use?

The title question is not intended to be a rhetorical question. I have one answer. It seems that, at least when nuclear weapons were first introduced, those at the highest levels in political and military hierarchies were as vulnerable as ordinary soldiers and civilians when it comes to nuclear weapons. Leaders might be less likely to launch aggressive wars to become "conquering heroes" if they are no safer than the cannon fodder that they send out.

[genie_weenie]

1. Space Travel

Massive Earth Demolition projects, Astronomical usages (moon mining, astreiod realignment)

[don954]

2. well.. if you need to excavate a big area really fast...

it was one of the ideas from project plowshare.

They also give the ultimate protection, no one invades a nuke armed nation. Also, the leaders of most nuke armed nations act more carefully, worried they will start WWIII... An armed society is a polite society..

China broke the cycle, they realized that it was only required to obtain a quantity of nukes to act as a deterrence, and a huge stockpile wasn't necessary. After all, how many times CAN one blow up the planet?

[JVS]

3. That the USA and USSR never came to blows directly

That would have been fucking heinous

[enigma000]

4. The humanitarian benefit is no lunatic is going to nuke you

because of the inevitable and unprecedented counter-attack. The US nuclear shield extends over Europe and parts of the Pacific rim. Latin America too, I guess........

[jpak]

5. Quick and easy answer to overpopulation and global warming (nuke winter)

:nuke:

[Selatius]

6. We will develop more heinous weapons technology, I'm sure

The higher-ups in government fancy the idea of building orbiting weapons platforms that can rain bombs down on targets at hypersonic speed. If we ever colonized space, we would simply end up building warships in space to defend colonial possessions against other nations wanting a piece of real estate.

[brokensymmetry]

7. Cures the heartbreak of psoriasis? n/t

.

[bananas]

8. I think your answer is incorrect

You wrote,
The title question is not intended to be a rhetorical question. I have one answer. It seems that, at least when nuclear weapons were first introduced, those at the highest levels in political and military hierarchies were as vulnerable as ordinary soldiers and civilians when it comes to nuclear weapons. Leaders might be less likely to launch aggressive wars to become "conquering heroes" if they are no safer than the cannon fodder that they send out.

When nuclear weapons were created, plans were made for the political and military hierarchies to survive attack. Leaders have always been vulnerable to assassination: JFK, "Murder Inc.", Indira Ghandi, Hitler, many attempts on Saddam Hussein, Kaddafi, Castro. On 911, Rice and Cheney went into nuclear-hardened bunkers, the Pentagon was hit directly, and then came the anthrax attacks.

A few years ago, India and Pakistan escalated near nuclear war; India pointed out that it could easily absorb whatever Pakistan threw at it, but Pakistan would be wiped out. So just having nukes isn't necessarily an effective deterrent.

If you read PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses", even the neocons don't want bigger weapons, they want smaller weapons, small tactical nukes, bunker busters, bioweapons that target specific groups, etc.