I need to pick a side and i need some very major points and good arguements ... keep the policy on WMDs strict or should we change it? why?
2006-07-23 16:18:16 · 4 answers · asked by anonymus 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Keep it strict and with plenty of common sense. Otherwise the "living document" of WMD will include free speech. - ie. using 'speech' as a weapon to incite the masses.
2006-07-23 16:21:50 · answer #1 · answered by MK6 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think any policy on weapons of mass destruction will work the way it's intended. Like, WMDs are bad because they don't discriminate between the good people and the bad ones, and a lot of innocent people get killed, right? Then obviously, it would be the bad guys who had them in the first place, because they would have known this and made the weapons anyway. And telling them not to make the weapons won't stop them from doing it (bad guys, remember?). On the other hand, if the policy wasn't so strict, you still have the loss of innocent lives and a lot of pissed off people who would probably have WMDs of their own.
2006-07-23 16:39:15 · answer #2 · answered by Nobody 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our policy on WMDs is anything but strict. In fact, it is totally arbitrary. Witness our response to Iraq with alleged WMDs vs our response to North Korea with CONFIRMED WMDs. That being said, policy is a tool of government. To rigidly adhere to it would remove the flexibility to deal with unique situations. Enemies could take advantage of a rigid adherence to lure us into traps or manipulate us. A nation needs to maintain its ability to be unpredictable.
2006-07-23 16:54:31 · answer #3 · answered by Brand X 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
LooK @ YoOH ChEAtIn....Im TElLiN....LoL
2006-07-23 16:21:34 · answer #4 · answered by Ms. klOHe 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋