Do US nuclear weapons preserve peace and prevent world wars?

[Winston]

Today I went to the science museum at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where they showed us exhibits and films about how the team of scientists there in the 1940's developed the first atomic bomb used to end WWII.

In one of the films they showed us, a scientist at Los Alamos said that the US buildup of nuclear weapons after WWII was a good thing. He said that nuclear arms have preserved the peace and prevented another world war -- like WWI and WWII -- from occurring again.

Is that true? If so, it's a paradox that nuclear weapons keep the peace. But it also unfairly gives America a big hammer to threaten every other country into submission to its will, in effect, making America the boss and ruler of the world.

I wonder if the top notch scientists at Los Alamos know that the US commits many crimes abroad in secret, especially through the CIA and other covert operations. If so, how do they justify that? Do they believe that the US is always the good guy in every situation?

There were also exhibits explaining why the atomic bomb had to be dropped on Japan to save lives on both sides, and also exhibits explaining why some historians disagree and said that it wasn't necessary.

So what do you all think? Is it true that nuclear weapons have prevented more world wars from occurring? If so, how?

I love that quote from Robert Oppenheimer, the head of the team that developed the atomic bomb, where he said upon viewing the detonation of the first atomic bomb in New Mexico, quoting the Bhagavad Gita, that "Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds".

That was very poetic. I wonder how he lived with himself after that. Wouldn't you have sleepless nights if you were the guy who developed the atomic bomb, knowing that you may have brought about the destruction of the world?

[Hero]

I wonder how he lived with himself after that. Wouldn't you have sleepless nights if you were the guy who developed the atomic bomb, knowing that you may have brought about the destruction of the world?

No, not really. Would you prefer it if Hitler or Stalin got the bomb first?

It's easy for us to look back 70 years later and preach about the immorality of nuclear weapons. After all, our generation didn't have to live through 6 years of world war. But in the world of 1945, people were sick of war and wanted to end it as soon as possible. I once spoke to a WW2 vet about this, and he told me that, while they hated to drop that bomb on innocent civilians, that action probably saved lives.

[momopi]

Today I went to the science museum at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where they showed us exhibits and films about how the team of scientists there in the 1940's developed the first atomic bomb used to end WWII.
In one of the films they showed us, a scientist at Los Alamos said that the US buildup of nuclear weapons after WWII was a good thing. He said that nuclear arms have preserved the peace and prevented another world war -- like WWI and WWII -- from occurring again.
Is that true? If so, it's a paradox that nuclear weapons keep the peace. But it also unfairly gives America a big hammer to threaten every other country into submission to its will, in effect, making America the boss and ruler of the world.

Um, no, the Russians still maintain a larger nuclear stockpile than America.

When the Russians annexed Crimea this year, US and EU governments cried like babies, but were powerless to actually do much.

[Repatriate]

Winston, you do realize that other countries have these nuclear bombs and MAD (mutually assured destruction) as a concept has been around for 50+ years now?

Btw, the whole concept of a nuclear world as being a safer one is an illusion. If things were to really go bad then the entire world will be hitting a reset button at the same time.

[Winston]

How can that be Momopi? The US outspent Russia during the Cold War and can always have more nuclear weapons.

During WWII why didn't the US just seek a compromise or peace treaty with Japan so it didn't have to choose between dropping the bomb or invading the country?

[momopi]

How can that be Momopi? The US outspent Russia during the Cold War and can always have more nuclear weapons.
During WWII why didn't the US just seek a compromise or peace treaty with Japan so it didn't have to choose between dropping the bomb or invading the country?

...and who told you that the US always had more nuclear weapons than USSR?