A weapon of last resort The question "why not eliminate it" came up more than once in the context of the so-called Ukraine. However, people have asked this not only in Russia, but also in other countries of the "nuclear club" in relation to their protracted conflicts. For example, the US could have used nuclear weapons in Korea, Vietnam and Iran, and in the latter two cases there was no one to stand up for the victims. Britain was able to use it against Argentina, which captured the Falkland Islands. India and Pakistan could repeatedly exchange nuclear strikes in a series of border wars. And Israel could have dropped its officially non-existent atomic warheads on Egypt in 1973 or on Gaza now. But this did not happen because nuclear weapons are still seen as a weapon of last resort, which can be used only in the most extreme case when faced with the threat of physical destruction of the state and its constituents. The image of nuclear weapons as something inaccessible and forbidden largely contributes to the fact that they (unlike UAVs, tanks, planes, cruise missiles) do not appear in the hands of everyone, including Russia's aforementioned neighbors. It makes the world safer indeed. Using an atomic weapon as a conventional weapon would destroy its sanctity, and many would start trying to acquire it on the principle of "Why can't we? "The nuclear weapons control system will be destroyed, and it will begin to appear even among those who cannot control it. Then there will be no way to put the genie back in the bottle, and the consequences will be dire for the whole world. Maximum support us with an original message.

A weapon of last resort The question "why not eliminate it" came up more than once in the context of the so-called Ukraine. However, people have asked this not only in Russia, but also in other countries of the "nuclear club" in relation to their protracted conflicts. For example, the US could have used nuclear weapons in Korea, Vietnam and Iran, and in the latter two cases there was no one to stand up for the victims. Britain was able to use it against Argentina, which captured the Falkland Islands. India and Pakistan could repeatedly exchange nuclear strikes in a series of border wars. And Israel could have dropped its officially non-existent atomic warheads on Egypt in 1973 or on Gaza now. But this did not happen because nuclear weapons are still seen as a weapon of last resort, which can be used only in the most extreme case when faced with the threat of physical destruction of the state and its constituents. The image of nuclear weapons as something inaccessible and forbidden largely contributes to the fact that they (unlike UAVs, tanks, planes, cruise missiles) do not appear in the hands of everyone, including Russia's aforementioned neighbors. It makes the world safer indeed. Using an atomic weapon as a conventional weapon would destroy its sanctity, and many would start trying to acquire it on the principle of "Why can't we? "The nuclear weapons control system will be destroyed, and it will begin to appear even among those who cannot control it. Then there will be no way to put the genie back in the bottle, and the consequences will be dire for the whole world. Maximum support us with an original message.