Why are you in favor of/against NUKES?

Question

Aren't those WMD's?

Will the US invade itself because they've found evidence of the existence of WMD's in American territory?

Answer 1

No. US wont invade itself. US just goes abt yelling and attacking other countries for "supposed" possession of WMD's & easily ignores the fact that US is the "WMD Capital of the world".

I expect China, Iran & N-Korea to invade US in the very near future and do what actually US does around the world - Declare that US must disarm (which obviously the US won't or it'll get broke for yrs), give them an ultimatum (which the US will not give a damn abt coz of its arrogance) & get bombed all ends up by these countries.

"U need to be bombed to understand what happens to countries and its ppl who get bombed" - Cristiano Ronaldo.

U fcuk up Japan, u fcuk up Russia, u fcuk up Afghanistan, u fcuk up Iraq, u fcuk up Somalia....... and a day will come when u will yourself get fcuked up.

Answer 2

I'm in favor of nukes since that could be the only real reason we have not had a third world war yet.Since the world community has done such poor job trying to regulate the access of WMD's, I think the real solution would be to develop a weapon system far more deadlier the WMD's so out of fear countries would not go to war, and there would be another race but this time to get the new weapon.
Reality is we can have absolute war and hate on this planet but we can never have absolute peace, its against human nature.
Don't take me wrong I'm not in favor of unthoughtful or deceptive wars either, but at the end of the day I'm an American and I put the welfare of Americans before the rest of the world. A bit selfish? I know. I know.

Answer 3

It depends in whose hands.

"Nukes" are the cornerstone of the deterrence regime, and 5 countries are allowed by international law to have them, including the US. Nuclear deterrence may be one reason why the Cold War remained "cold", at a standstill: the fear of the damage that nuclear weapons could cause was enough to convince both the East and the West not to wage an all-out war against each other. Nuclear weapons still play a deterrence role, hence North Korea's (and presumably Iran's) effort to try to acquire nuclear weapons.

It may seem unfair that only 5 countries be allowed to maintain a nuclear arsenal, but most of the rest of the world agreed to it, including Iran, and North Korea at one time, through the provisions of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). In exchange for abandonning any quest to acquire nuclear weapons, state parties that were not among the 5 were guaranteed assistance and help if they wanted to develop a peaceful civilian nuclear program (eg. for energy supply purposes). However, a few countries like Israel, Pakistan and India did not sign the NPT and acquired nuclear weapons, and North Korea withdrew from the NPT.

"Weapon of Mass Destruction" (WMD) is a generic term that traditionally groups nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological weapons; not all of these weapons are illegal as such.

I believe that in the wrong hands, the result of having "nukes" could lead to a catastrophy. So to answer your question, and although this may sound a little utopian, I am in favor of nukes in the hands of the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council, as their having "nukes" during the Cold War had a stabilizing effect, but not in the hands of anyone else.

Answer 4

Yes, nuclear weapons most certainly *are* Weapons of Mass Destruction. How astute of you. Just another example of America's Imperial Hubris.

Oh, and any sane, rational person is vocally and adamantly against nuclear weapons. Of any size or style or shape or form.
Here is a weapon which not only causes death on an unholy level, but remains in the air and soil and water for thousands and thousands and thousands of years.

It is frightening to imagine that there are people in the world today who have no idea what radiation is or what is does to you. You cannot call yourself "human" and support nuclear proliferation.

READ "HIROSHIMA."

Answer 5

Definately against. They are devastating to all forms of life. Duh.

No. Americans leaders for some reason have appointed themselves the Nukes police.

Answer 6

I am for nuclear weapons on a very small scale, such as would be used as bunker busters and such. I am not for nuclear weapons that will cause MASS destruction of human, animal, and vegetative life.

Only to be used for Defense on a specific target. Never a target on a massive scale.

Answer 7

Nuclear weapons are massively indiscriminate, killing more civillians that military personell, especially women and children.

Do you need any other reason why there evil?

Answer 8

Will you stick your head up you own a**?