2006-07-14 03:41:01 · 14 answers · asked by Dr MK Khaishagi 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I don't think anybody should develop them, US included. We are such hypocrites to tell everybody else that they can not have atomic bombs but we can. "Oh we are responsible and won't hurt anyone with ours, so we can keep them." That's like my neighbor holding a gun to my head and telling me to get rid of my gun because I will do something bad with it, but it is okay for him to have his because he is responsible and will keep everyone safe. I don't think so.
2006-07-14 03:47:08 · answer #1 · answered by Icy U 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because there are some rogue leaders in this world who can not be trusted to carry atomic bombs. Imagine if Sadam had atomic bombs- there would be no more Kurds left. And same with the Palestinians- there would be no more Israel to fight over. The USA has such a severely strict checks and balance system, that there is very VERY little chance that any of our leaders could ever misuse such a weapon. As a "Super Power" we need to hold those weapons, but trust me, if we were much smaller and someone else was the Super Power, we would not have the atomic bombs. We have them, but we have the restraint to not use them. If we did not have the restraint, we would have used one before and would have gotten Osama Bin Laden.
2006-07-14 03:47:44 · answer #2 · answered by AnAvidViewer 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, you just made a point. That, sadly enough, is the theory of Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty. The theory is to have every country have the potential to develop nuclear arms, so that every country would therefore, be reluctant to do so. Why build a bomb when your neighbor can do the same? The problem is having countries develop a nuclear weapon to threaten countries that don't have nuclear arms.. leading to arms races.
2006-07-14 04:17:05 · answer #3 · answered by vswami05 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question!
Most rational people know that nuclear weapons are defensive weapons (deterrent weapons). George W. Bush has reminded the world that they will be much safer from unilateral U.S. imperialism if they speed-up their acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Disarmament is what the world economy needs to create a peaceful business climate for all. The United States has wasted trillions and trillions of dollars on its military-industrial complex and we are now the world's largest debtor nation.
If we'd focused on building TV's instead of bombs, the world might be a safer place....at least they wouldn't hate the US as much.
2006-07-14 03:59:54 · answer #4 · answered by ideogenetic 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
.Every country has a right to protect themselves. It is only normal that Iran,N. Korea want bombs. the are afraid if they don't countries like the US will attack them. if Iraq had the bomb do you think we would be there now. I don't think so . the world is a much safer place if all countries could protect themselves.
terrorism is a verb not an adjective. the imperialist US is a form of terrorism. we want to force our big business to take over the world with western ideas. does a beautiful place like Bali really need a MacDonald's KFC. Missionaries are terrorist too. they want to force their beliefs on people and damage their culture.
2006-07-14 03:57:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If everyone had the bomb, the chances of one being used goes way up. And you know what that means, kids. Once one's used, they're all going to be used, and that's the end of the world. I would feel much better better with the U.S. having nuclear weapons than a country in Africa who's country changes governments more than I change my bed sheets.
2006-07-14 03:47:12 · answer #6 · answered by Jeremy R 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no need for an atomic bomb anymore, and I dont know where your from but Im sure its closer to N.Korea or Iran than I am.. you could be first to go if the US dont stop nuts like kimjungwingpinggy pants
2006-07-14 03:45:00 · answer #7 · answered by The King of All Answerer's 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. The US is not a bully. We destroy bullies. Saddam Hussein was a bully. Osama bin Laden is a bully. Kim Jong (mentally) Il is a bully.
2. In whose best interest would it be to allow potential bullies and terrorists to have nuclear weapons? Do you want to wake up one day and have to deal with a nuclear holocost? You will if you allow the maniac in Iran and Kim Jong (mentally) Il to have nukes.
2006-07-14 03:48:16 · answer #8 · answered by justincase_65 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why not just thermonuke all the other nations so there is no one to bully?
Same logic
Same Results.
Probably less loss of life since there wont be the inital loss of US Citizen life when they throw them at us.
2006-07-14 03:44:59 · answer #9 · answered by profit0004 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a good question. You might want to read up about Game Theory and The Prisoner's Dilemma.
2006-07-14 03:45:56 · answer #10 · answered by ZahirJ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋