The question and answer are devoid of context.

Be calm and carry on... it is exactly what is asked of every nation-state leader on the planet. It is a part of the contemporary nature of the job, however, and it is a huge however, circumstance and process are key and unrelated to this sort of "bait and freak" question offered in this thread.

over nuclear weapons. In fact, most do not-- so I doubt very much that those without are ever asked the question.

Would kill 100,000 people to save their country.

So would Trump

Back in the day Thatcher would've too in a heartbeat.

but I hope we will never see it have to be done in any of our lifetimes.

Please refer to my post down thread #23

involving a biological weapon and or ice-nine style scenario infecting an entire city that has to be destroyed fast before it can spread.
Granted the statistical odds of something like that actually happening are probably larger than being the sole winner of a 5 billion dollar powerball lottery drawing or even higher than finding a single Republican politician who isnt a complete asshole but it could happen.
Yes, its extremely unlikely but you never paint yourself into a corner by claiming you wont do something because it can turn around and bite you on the ass like when Bush Sr made the whole "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge and then he had to eat his own words.

if we are presented with a situation that is so dire that it will kill off humanity that the need of nuclear weapons is required, then the choice is: we either die quick of what ever the new threat is or we die slowly of nuclear winter.

it's a Hobbesian choice.

and one single weapon is the topic not multiple nuclear weapons being detonated across the entire globe in a war.

Edit: Try this http://www.industrytap.com/supervolcanic-eruptions-as-powerful-as-100000-nuclear-bombs/10038

Then I have a bridge to sell you.

but suppose only one bomb was used, are you prepared for the massive humanitarian fallout from it's use?

the countless amounts of immediate victims of radiation, the countless amounts of people from long term radiation?

the amount of irradiated water, cattle, crops and land?

this doesn't even take into account the devastating effect it would have on the worlds economy, let along the economy of the region it was dropped on.

do you want to pay that bill if you think just one bomb is okay?

there is no good use of any kind of nuclear bomb. period.

and a single bomb simply does not have the power to cause a nuclear winter and as for paying the bill?
Well if thats the price to pay vs say stopping an ice-nine type incident from ending all life on the entire planet then its worth it.

Do you suggest creating a nuclear winter then to stop the temps rising?

One bomb wouldn't "fix it".

And I'm not going from zero to 60 with this concept.

This is a real world problem right now, a possible civilization ender. If you look back at what you wrote, that's what you are activating for.

or are you only picking and choosing what is a civilization ender to fit your meme?

scenarios where such a weapon might have to be used, hopefully though it will never ever come to pass.

I have read enough about the use, deployment and bizarre politics surrounding nuclear weapons to show me there is no situation were their use would be any good.

and using outlandish impossible scenarios doesn't qualify as a possible need.

and if such an outlandish scenario did unfold, we would be so far down that rabbit hole that nuclear weapons would be of no use.

and more over, who are we to actually trust to make that decision to drop a bomb? I wouldn't trust anyone. even someone I voted for.

nuclear weapons serve no good.

good day.

We normally slap sanctions on countries whose leaders openly muse about the nuclear option.

first strike. In fact even when there have been international negotiations to reach an understanding that nuclear weapons would never be used as a first strike the US has refused to accept a no first strike limitation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use#United_States

Declared NPT powers (like US and UK) get to play by a different set of rules.

please refer to my post #23

"The US formally reserves the ability to not only use nuclear weapons but to use them as first strike"

Pity that.

Airstrip One...

Is in the deciding if it was necessary.

to efficiently get their oil

Was the correct call.

and everything that goes with that, he would have still dropped the bomb?

Interesting.

The bomb was built. There is no putting that back in the bottle

He never regretted using it.

When the president said yes to the bomb: Truman's diaries reveal no hesitation, some regret

President Harry Truman’s decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki came with regret over the loss of life, but without hesitation.

http://www.stripes.com/news/special-reports/world-war-ii-the-final-chapter/wwii-victory-in-japan/when-the-president-said-yes-to-the-bomb-truman-s-diaries-reveal-no-hesitation-some-regret-1.360308


-----------------------------

sounds like regret to me.

As in too bad so many had to die, but would do it again if need be.

I showed you he had regret.

I guess that's not enough for you.

Rephrase:

Truman never stated that if he had to do it all over he would not have droppd the bomb.

Better?

we're done.

My point is/was that truman never wished he could take back ehat he did even if he regretted the loss of life.

I answered your question then you choose re-frame it to fit your narrative.

good day.

Who have the Brits made PM?????

She sounds worse than Thatcher.

If North Korea wipes out London, May (if she was still around) could just wipe out Pyongyang. That'll show em not to mess with the UK.

Seemed she had a gleam in her eye as she answered, but a far better answer would be, "It depends on the circumstances but yes, if a careful analysis showed it should be done."

And even then, I couldn't imagine unleashing the nuclear holocaust -- but then again, I am not Republican.

What's the point of having nukes if you promise to never use them, no matter what? Their purpose is to be a deterrent, and that means your potential enemies have to believe you could and would use them if attacked.

Hopefully they never get used - but as long as the authoritarian regimes in Russia and China have nukes, do you really think the West should unilaterally disarm? If you tell the world you'd never use them, it amounts to the same thing. Scary thought.

unless you have actually read up on their use, you have zero idea what you are in store for if they are used.

they should be banned, dismantled and plowed back into the earth.

just one bomb of the megaton variety would have such acute effects upon the earth, it would be devastating.

the off hand comment by May is so colossally dangerous and out right stupid, it give me pause as to her ability to think clearly.

please refer to my post in this thread #23.

once upon a time, someone a company bought an outdated adding machine. When one of the lower level managers saw this, they said to throw it away, but upper management overruled the lower level manager by saying, "we paid a lot of money for that adding machine! don't throw it away!", but the lower manager replied, "but it's out dated!" The upper manager, said, "So what? we can't just throw it out!"

and that's the issue with nukes.

we can't just get rid of them because "we paid a lot of money for them!" MIC uses this very same argument over and over to justify the need for "newer and updated" nukes.

with nukes are willing to agree to get rid of them because they are afraid someone will lie and keep a hidden stockpile of them and then threaten to use them on the countries once everyone else supposedly gets rid of theirs.
I say supposedly because the odds are the other countries would all also lie about getting rid of their nuclear weapons.

one would think that the MIC was looking out for use because of the MIC's mistrust of other nations.

But alas, no, they only ever look out for themselves.

funding for the U.S. nuclear stockpile is a big chunk of the defense budget.

get rid of that, you get rid of a lot of cushy jobs.

In that a single Megaton sized bomb would have devastating World affect.

On October 30th, 1961 the Soviets detonated the Tsar Bomba, a 50 Megaton bomb. While it did produce unexpected local effect and damage, such as causing 3rd degree burns a hundred kilometers away, it did not result in worldwide devastation.

Throughout the fifties and sixties the United States, Soviet Union, UK, and France all detonated multi Megaton weapons.

And I do hope you were being sarcastic.

But one can never tell...

Shame US hadn't developed a nuclear weapon at the start of WW2. It might have saved 72 million lives.

No big shock here...