I'll rank them from least combat effective to most and you just draw the line or voice your opinion. I'm looking to get a concensus of see what people think on this. Preferably draw the line between two weapon types. I've left the list BROAD. Don't take it as a joke please.
no weapons should be legal for the US military to own, Bottle Rockets, BB guns, Bow & arrows, medeival throwing devices like catapults and trebuchets, low powered rifles(22), shotguns, semi-automatic handguns, high powered hunting rifles, sub-machine guns, assualt rifles/sniper rifles, machine guns, hand grenades, RPG's, combat vehicles like tanks, scud missiles, fighter jets, chemical and biolotical weapons, nuclear warheads, ultra small and powerful but not yet existent antimatter bombs, or there should be no laws against US military possession of weapons...
You may also argue that I have them in the wrong order if your line can't be drawn.
2006-09-12 11:28:39 · 15 answers · asked by JonFugeEverybody! 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The US military as the premier power in the world today must have superior arms to any otehr potential enemy. Therefore there cannot by definition be any line drawn about potential arms that are legal for them to carry. instead there should be a guideline of potential arms that they can deploy depending upon the enemy in a given situation. Or would you want our soldiers blasted into pieces because we made them use sticks and stones to fight people armed with sophisticated weapons
2006-09-12 11:34:53 · answer #1 · answered by david k 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think you question misses the larger point; how is it that the US spends more on weaponry than all other nations in the world combined? There is already a non-proliferation treaty in place that the US and Israel have flagrantly violated. Arguably you would want to ban weapons that are so powerful that the annihilation of the human race and the rest of the planet becomes a potential reality. Currently there is only one country on the planet that has such power; that would be the USA. Russia's, China's and India's capabilities are marginal in this regard. We are currently living in an armed madhouse (the US)that is viewed by over 70% of the world's population as the "most dangerous threat to world peace". What's stunning is that the rest of the world does not have a monolithic propaganda machine like the US' rendering the US population with opinions about world affairs that makes the rest of the world stunned in disbelief as if we were living on a different planet than them. Don't get me wrong; every country has some kind propaganda system in place, but none as massive, pervasive and as successful as ours. I believe that all nations should have their military budgets restricted to less than 1% of the GDP; this would ensure that nobody would be able to use the threat of force to coerce another nation for whatever reason.
2006-09-12 11:52:45 · answer #2 · answered by markfuller2000 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i personally think tht as an US citizen,i hav to say im gonna want everythin the enemy has x3. because if we dont hav it som1 will use it against us.if it was possible 2 take all weapons away from evry country and keep them from makin more,i honestly wouldnt do it.from lookin at r past i dnt thnk tht humans were meant to be peaceful.but then again im a person who wants more than anything else to join either the US airforce or US navy and be able 2 fire huge highly powerful weapons at the enemy.
some people say tht would or does give them nightmares or regrets for the rest of there life but 2 me any1 who takes arms against the US should be destroyed.so it wouldnt bother me at all. but not many people share tht opinion with me.
2006-09-12 18:14:22 · answer #3 · answered by stuntman12 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think i would draw the line at tanks with about 80 MM gun. People at Waco were said to have anti tank bazookas . They didn't but they needed them. it really takes a tank to defend against a tank. Probably surface to air missile should be legal too. I am serious not jokeing
2006-09-12 11:40:37 · answer #4 · answered by kdub ken 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You can not, unless you can control every Country in the world! And if you can do that Washington DC needs you badly!
In so far as the public goes, here again you can not ban weapons unless you can disarm the criminal element and this has never been done in history!
2006-09-12 11:40:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The USA should posses any and all weapon types that may be pointed and deployed at any time on all our enemies.
2006-09-12 11:35:06 · answer #6 · answered by exert-7 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only thing you should is ban weapons from criminals and those that do not demonstrate a proper use of them.
2006-09-12 11:33:39 · answer #7 · answered by kevin T 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
as answered in your previous post.. every country should be allowed whatever weapons any other country has. No matter what they are. Fair is Fair
2006-09-12 11:31:12 · answer #8 · answered by psychstudent 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
being an American citizen I'm not for any limit on what weapons we canhave. Its the self -preservasionist in me.
2006-09-12 11:32:42 · answer #9 · answered by rolla_jay510 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
we see what happens when people try and set "rules" on warfare. We have to follow specific rules, but the people we fight against don't follow them.
So as long as you can't inforce the same rules on the enemy you can not enforce them on the US army
2006-09-12 11:32:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋