I defend nuclear weapons because they are a guarentee of peace. The U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. were both invaded/attacked in 1941, when neither had nuclear weapons. Neither have seen such an attack by a foreign state since they have developed their atomic deterrants. Only once in world history, during the Yom Kippur War, has a nuclear state been attacked by foreign powers.
Atomic weapons are a much more effective deterrant, dollar for dollar, than any other manpower or firepower that could be purchased. In the case of the Yom Kippur War, I believe that nuclear retaliation would likely have been used if the survival of the state of Israel appeared in immediate danger. It was clearly a miscalcuation by the arab states to invade, a miscalculation they would have paid dearly for had they come close to winning the war.
Not to mention people who wear a belt filled with explosives and nails and pull the trigger in a crowded area with 100 % possibility of own death, and 0 % sense in doing so.
Suicide bombers are much more understandable and "reasonable" than anyone who would use strategic nuclear weapons - men are willing to sacrifice their own lives, but much less often are they willing to sacrifice the lives of every one of their family, friends and countrymen. Suicide bombers guarentee their own deaths, not the deaths of everyone on "their side".
