esp. when we ourselves still do?
2006-11-13 07:52:58 · 9 answers · asked by kelleygaither2000 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
It's really related to those who have them trying to maintain their strategic advantage and also trying to keep them out of the hands of unstable entities.
2006-11-13 07:58:47 · answer #1 · answered by sunshine25 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is self rightous. Each state is a legal entity in light of the international law. So it is somewhat hipocritical to ban others from having it while the US still has it, eventhough it signed a treaty to eliminate it. Forgot the treaty? Just dust it off and read again.
2006-11-13 20:18:07 · answer #2 · answered by Borat2® 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Couldn't let one of the posts go by without responding..... The treaty signed by the US & Russia was to bring weaponry into a reduced state, not elimination!!
2006-11-13 20:29:17 · answer #3 · answered by mrcricket1932 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It isn't nuclear weapons, it is who has them.
America isn't going to use them. Iran will.
Moral relativism (like you have shared) is illogical, because it assumes base equality between all elements sharing a common trait.
-Aztec276
2006-11-13 16:03:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
None should exist on this earth - generally, I think humans aren't capable of understanding the cost of such distruction.
2006-11-13 16:02:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Uh, no. Common sense should tell you to keep an unstable government from having them.
2006-11-13 15:58:29 · answer #6 · answered by faversham 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Uh...no.
2006-11-13 15:55:31 · answer #7 · answered by luckistrike 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
WELL WE ARE THE POLICEMAN OF THE WORLD, AREN'T WE
2006-11-15 02:07:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it sure is,
2006-11-14 01:49:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋