Do you think we should be trying to limit or decrease the world arsenal of nuclear weapons? I'm not talking about only our arsenal but the total world wide arsenal of nukes. Does this make sense or not?
Thanks.
2006-10-28 04:43:48 · 12 answers · asked by Dastardly 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Ideally, ELIMINATING nuclear weapons would be the betterment of mankind. However, We, the USA, opened this Pandora's Box back in 1940's and I fear the box will Never be closed again.
Conservatives generally feel that a military force large enough in manpower, and with sufficient modern equipment to defend our national interests is a NECESSARY EVIL!!...We all wish war was NOT a reality, but wishing does not make it so.
To wish for peace, while downsizing our military is nothing but folly...and that INCLUDES nuclear weapons.
2006-10-28 04:51:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I fear that the biggest problem in nuclear terms is not the possibility of an Islamic extreme element getting hold of a nuclear capability, but the fact that there are neglected nuclear arms and reactors in parts of the former USSR. We have seen Chernobyl, but that is the tip of the iceberg. There are unmaintained nuclear submarines rotting in docks, which is basically a catastrophe in waiting. This is the major danger area and it is here that the world must give the fullest attention and assistance. The world as a whole did not create the problem, but financially the western world must clear it up.
2006-10-28 04:52:29 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Salt two treaty did limit the number of nuclear weapons our selves and former nations of the USSR and china can posses. Its the new countries developing them that are not limited by treaty.
They will never be elimintaed, it wouldn't be totaly verifiable, so get that out of your head, there will always be nukes.
2006-10-28 04:48:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
We should try to limit the arsenal of agressive nations.,and no usa is not agressive,we dont attack until we are attacked.Same as Israel they dont attack until they have been and this is what confuses me with peoples frame of mind about the usa and other nations that are not the agressors.You question does make sense but as you can see,its not going to be an easy task.Look at North Korea and Iran.I think we had better be beefing up ours.
2006-10-28 04:49:30 · answer #4 · answered by halfbright 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
what do you think is in the nuclear treaties that has everyone so up in arms? we have been decreasing the worlds arsenol and our own since reagan! we have with russia destroyed like 3,000 each so far..this is why we are pissed at north korea and iran..not for the nuclear power but for the weapons making!
2006-10-28 04:52:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, if there were a way to ensure everyone could decrease their arsenal of nukes, or get rid of them completely, I am all for it
2006-10-28 04:47:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I would say yes. The shear volume of these weapons is frightening.
I am editting my answer here.
The question is not should we give up our nukes or abandon the program. The question is should we be trying to limit them.
2006-10-28 04:46:27 · answer #7 · answered by Mr. Justis 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Neither.
In a perfect world, NOBODY would have a nuke. However, it's not a perfect world. No one is willing to be the first to disarm, and I don't blame them.
2006-10-28 04:46:05 · answer #8 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Only if we can guaruntee that others will not develop nuclear weapons after we have completely disarmed
2006-10-28 04:55:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
First we should stop selling them the components to make nukes, every time we don't like their neighbors.
2006-10-28 04:49:45 · answer #10 · answered by jackie 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋