http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnnfN.aPQyt9sT_ko02rZ0_sy6IX?qid=20070819171956AAn67yN&show=7#profile-info-ef931cca1f9e44db5aa00adecc4b83b2aa
Sorry for the similar question to the one I just posted, but I'm looking for more responses, detailed ones would be good.
Under what circumstance would deploying a weapon of mass destruction against a civilian target benefit the United States of America? Even if we were attacked with nukes, what would striking innocent people accomplish?
I'm hawkish on all other military matters, but if nukes and other weapons are nothing more than a bluff, why don't we dismantle them? And under what insane circumstance would you have to come up with for there to be a precedent for using them?
I'd spend money on preventing nuclear strikes, missile defense shield, border security, etc. I'd never deploy WMD under any circumstance.
If you disagree, please state why, and please do it with civility.
2007-08-19
13:55:50
·
19 answers
·
asked by
askthepizzaguy
4
in
Politics