Do US nuclear weapons preserve peace and prevent world wars?

[Scepcop]

Hi all,
I'm on a road trip in New Mexico now. 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?

[Mr Q]

If one country has nukes and its enemy has them, yes. Its because of the idea of "MAD" (Mutual Assured Destruction) - as soon as one fires first, the other country fires theirs and both countries are destroyed - no one wins!

Now if only one country has nukes, that's a dangerous situation since no mutual destruction is possible. And if one country is populated by terrorists or Mal-contents, we are all in danger.

[nobody]

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/index.htm

[Phuricsame]

I commend you on the subject just to let others know.