I think that argument could be made by all nations and I can understand their reasoning. The reality of "rogue states" makes the more "stable" nations feel that the rules should be different depending on who's seeking the weapons, which is a prudent policy, if theoretically it seems unfair. This would be a great question for a debating class.
2006-08-13 15:08:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by Daphne 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Does the US beleive that "the Zionist State" needs to be destroyed through any means? Does the US support terrorist attacks against civilians? Is the US run by a bunch of clerics who would see everyone submit to Islam or die?
No.
Iran does.
2006-08-13 15:04:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by riven3187 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
This is really simple...if state A publicly advocates the destruction of state B, then state A should be kept from acquiring nuclear weapons.
2006-08-13 18:48:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by homerunhitter 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Big difference between deterrent and First Strike weapon. Or weapon to be used for BLACKMAIL. Big Difference.
2006-08-13 14:59:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
When a country threatens to wipe another country off the map, that's when they lose their right to nukes.
2006-08-13 15:05:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by Brand X 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. Some countries have shown that they are not intelligent enough to handle so large a responsibility.
2006-08-13 15:04:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by genny_gump 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
For having gone above and beyond proving your ignorance you have earned an Associate Degree.
2006-08-13 14:59:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
No. Every country is not equal.
2006-08-13 15:04:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by TheSlayor 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
BIG difference between strategic super-powers and rogue/rump states...
2006-08-13 15:12:08
·
answer #9
·
answered by Its not me Its u 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
no, you let ur allies have them but why would u let ur enemies? on principle? that would be stupid.
2006-08-13 15:07:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋