Im refering to the end of WWII when we were the only ones with nuclear technology, and we gave it to our "Allies". We gave nuclear technology to Russia and Britain. We have regretted it with Russia ever since.You're confused. We aren't giving them nuclear technology. The Aegis system is not nuclear, it is an anti-missle defense system from the 90s. The reason we're giving it to them is in exchange for them agreeing to reduce their stockpile of nukes.
That is also incorrect... While part of the system is used for detecting ballistic missiles, not just any surface to air missile can be used to intercept it. They have to be compatible to that system as well as capable of intercepting an ICBM. Are we only giving Russia the radar portion of that technology? Do they already posses a missile that can intercept an ICBM? If so, why do they need us? Whether they use the system to deliver nukes or not, it can easily be used to shoot down say a fighter jet, in place of a ballistic missile.Aegis isn't a missile, it's a technology we use on boats to detect the exact location of incoming missiles. Then we just fire any standard surface to air missile at them. Regardless, the idea that Russia would somehow gain by trying to adapt a surface to air missile for use to deliver nukes is silly. They have ICBMs with rages like 8,000 miles and whatnot. A surface to air missile like we use with Aegis only have a range of like 80 miles. A surface to air missile is much smaller than an ICBM. Etc. But, again, Aegis isn't the missile technology, it's the detection technology.
And how many have been used? Ever? In the world? If they are in the hands of terrorists, why havent they been used? And do we really have ANY idea how many nukes North Korea has? Have they let anyone come take a look recently? Would they tell us if they did? Not to say that the nukes in Russia are not a potential danger, i dont agree that giving them military tech in exchange for getting rid of some is a good idea.You should read up on it a bit. Russia had thousands of nukes at one point and has basically lost track of quite a few of them that nobody knows where they are. Places like North Korea have like 1 bomb that they are never going to part with in a million years. Lost or stolen Russian nukes is most definitely our biggest worry at the moment in terms of terrorists.
As cited above, giving technology to Russia has proven NOT to be a deterent to aggression.No, but when the threats come up against one another we certainly give priority to the more likely one. In this case the threat from terrorism is far more likely than the threat of a war with Russia. And, regardless, this deal would DECREASE the threat of a war with Russia. Less nukes and more defensive tech makes them LESS of a threat...