Is it only okay for democratic countries to own nuclear weapons and kill people?

Answer 1

Yes.

Answer 2

Just because it's a democracy doesn't necessarily mean it's good. For example the real pirates of the Caribbean like Blackbeard worked on a democracy as in they voted as to which ship to attack and who to rape pillage and kill. I wouldn't call that good but it was indeed a democracy.

Nuclear power and weapons are a very new technology in which comes great responsibility and should not be misused. Which then watching the Bush administration it becomes painfully obvious of the negative implementations of the invention of Energy = mass times the speed of light squared. and what that might mean to humanity. I think the people of the United States and certainly the people of the world would like to see the end this war. My opinion is that the number one rule in the Nuclear arms game is "not to unleash the atomic weapons" ever. My dad's cousin Harry Klopf invented the patriot missile (dead) and this is good for all countries to have for it shoots down atomic weapons hence resolving rule number one. With that insane jackass at the throne with limitless power because of the declaration of war I am doing what I can to try to not let rule number one be broken. two years to go
It would be best if humane beings could figure out a way to get rid of those things.

If its a missle you shoot sr below a advanatge updating AI controled missle will shoot it down (((superhuman)))

I'm not to worried about that two stage rocket tha kin jon ill has that has a range of several hundred miles or something. (I could probably build that in my garage, I wouldn't want to but.. have you seen some of ours???

Iran might not even have anything and even so we have the patriot missle+ some other things so even if Iran has a bunch of "bommer subs" or something we could probably shoot that many rockets down.

I think it is important not to put on pressure as to make people think they have to use them and not to nurture a state of fear. I believe that America should invest more money on Nuclear defense than Nuclear offense because rule number one applies to other countries not unleashing nuclear weapons as well.

Such as it's far more probable that an nuclear attack would come from a container at a port than a missle or a plane thanks to the patriot missle so instead of investing in more warheads (and I do have a idea of how meny we have) it would be better to screen containers better and not be bulling around these guys with silly two stage rockets which costs money.

I suppose I would say that right now I am more conserned with America doing something silly than any country right now. All it takes is one crazed cobyboy on a mission from god.

So simply blackjack is right we need to get rid of these things easier said than done. Most people have not dealt with the wonderful world of the atomic realm. I have and one thing remains a consistant is it is very very very scary. I don't want to deal with these guys but they used to make triggers over the hill and sent the book in the mail. I also think they play on people's ignorance such as the WMD argument. Every one goes aaaahhhh WMD! when America has by far the most WMD on earth. we need to adopt a policy of peace and love.

missle vs missle
If then the patriot missle even with less generations has a advatage over a missle with a atomic warhead for a missle with a atomic warhead is bigger due to the Iron law. It will always be less manuverable and the intersepter will always win. Hense it is safe for me to talk of such things or even pass it on to other countries it is my information and I can do what I want with it. Hopefully this will eventually lead to eventually making the atomic warhead obsolete.
i win
a decade ago

Answer 3

No,but it is a necessary evil right now because most nations have their weapons pointed at us,what would they do if we didn't have them?Could u let ur kids walk around unprotected?could u let Iran or Korea oppress everyone with their weapons,threatning to launch them if anybody didnt do we at they wanted them to.Nuclear Weapons are what keep us safe at night,it keeps the other countries in line.

Answer 4

my my - aren't we a bitter person. nuclear weapons? - to kill & destroy life? with the attitude your question takes, it becomes a statement with little likeihood of discussion. be realistic & think! if everyone has a stick, let's say, the reality of life would be that at least once a day we would all be hit with sticks or be the hitter. now multiply that with nuclear weapons and wow! you can kiss your butt goodbye real quick. no! it's not ok for some. it should be none for none. me? i'd rather not get hit at all but if it has to be, i'd rather sticks, wouldn't you?

Answer 5

Nuclear weapons must not be allowed because these are only being used to harass poor countries with no money to buy weapons.

Answer 6

No it is not right. Countries should have the ability to protect themselves when other countries threaten their way of life. IE, the way we are threatening Iran.

Answer 7

Yes.

Answer 8

ya because we arnt crazy enough to ***** use them anymore, wich i wouldnt argue if someone suggested we did kim jong il the north korean wouldnt hesistate to use them neither would iran we dont use them but they will

Answer 9

It isn't okay for anyone to do it. But if you have nukes and an army, who is going to stop you?

Answer 10

yes