are you with or against nuclear_weapon free zone treaty?

Question

are you with or against nuclear_weapon free zone treaty?
this treaty is aplied to antracta,latin AMERICA,deep sea & ocean lands,middle Europe , balkan,africa,south ashia& middle east ...& some other places..

Answer 1

I'm against it. I believe in any country being able to develop means to protect itself.

Answer 2

the u n fortunate area of this treaty is that international locations like n.korea wont play in accordance to the rules.. It idealically will be tremendous for the full international to run houses and employer on complete renewable potential and characteristic no nukes- wepon or generator.. yet that wont be taking position.. The nuclear potential now is the finest source of electricity, and that i see no reason to withhold that from any united states.. the area with the treaty is it doesn't conceal the full international, and , ,,assume the sane international locations all discard thier nukes: Do you imagine that Iran , N.Korea , etc will do an same.. Nope! not on your existence! once something else of the international is unarmed, they are going to come after complete domination, and complete annhilation of Isreal. the area isn't who has what wepons, that's even if or not they're shown sane adequate to cope with that style of skill.. President Bush become accurate to call Iraq,Iran, and N.Korea "the axis of evil", and they in simple terms can't be depended on.. the full international is secure because some sane international locations do have the "bomb"..

Answer 3

And that will somehow protect them from North Korean or Chinese or Irani nukes, should they decide to fire them? Tyrannies are not well remembered for keeping to the treaties they sign, if they'd sign something like this at all. I think that only the passive targets would be signing this thing.

Perhaps they should be more proactive and preemptively surrender!

Sorry about the derision, but does anybody truly think stuff like this will protect them or give evil people the least pause?

Answer 4

i've seen this question before. against, because; if you take the big guns away from the sane nations, the crazies will still lie cheat and steal. the n.Koreans and Iranians will hide thiers till everyone has destroyed thiers, then they will try to destroy the world.. Rather rule in Hell than be a servant in Heaven , is thier moto.. We need a sensible sane bunch of adults with the strength to keep the children and crazies in line

Answer 5

I don't support anything that limits America's ability to protect its self. Ronald Reagen's refusal to bow to the Soviets is what eventually brought them down.

Answer 6

i answered the same question before...

but what "Ethan M" said reflects how everybody is thinking about it..

as countries who own this technology also own long-distance missiles then it is a surrender treaty...

Answer 7

Adam O, your crazy. I think we should get rid of all nuclear weapons to make our world a safer place.

Answer 8

i think everyone should have nuclear weapon in their home along with open vats of radioactive waste and pit of vipors just for fun

Answer 9

Sure, mate. Why do we need bloody nuclear weapons?

Answer 10

with .