If so, how can we get to that situation?
2007-03-25 11:22:30 · 12 answers · asked by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
espreses, do you realize that the "muslim part of the middle east" was the part that INVENTED civilization?
2007-03-25 12:08:34 · update #1
Certainly the muslim part of the middle east would be safer. They would be safe from retaliation when they slaughtered off the Jews. They would be safe from retaliation when financing jihad around the world. I cannot imagine working toward a situation that would help to make the enemies of civilization safe, only people who hate freedom, progress, and democracy would share that vision
2007-03-25 11:29:42 · answer #1 · answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It would be the best if all WMDs were eleminated. However, it would not change anything in the middle east. The whole idea of terrorist organizations having WMDs is totally bogus. They would have used them by now as a threat or as a military strike. Terrorist muslums believe in dying with honor, and that dying during a jihad will grant them instant access to Heaven. The fact is they couldn't give a damn less about ruining the planet because they would be graced in the hands of God in their minds. The only Middle East country that does have nukes is Pakistan, but they are active members of the UN and cut off all ties with the Taliban. Isreal may have WMDs, but they are on our side regardless. Therefore, terrorist actions would not change because they are getting around without them.
The ridding of WMDs would be fantastic scenerio. The ideal situation would be to find an outside source of nuclear energy, so there would be no use for such deadly materials. Sources of such harmful ingrediants would be closely monitored by UN soilders, and anyone who tries to extract it would feel the full force of the members of the UN. THAT would be the best case scenario. However, money makes the world go round...
2007-03-26 04:39:09 · answer #2 · answered by Joe S 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nuclear weapons are what keeps its neighbors out of Israel.
As to keeping them away from the other middle eastern countries....6 years ago nobody except India or Pakistan had them and we probably could have kept it that way. Now, I don't know if there's any way we can keep more countries from getting them...in particular, if I was in charge of Iran, I would have massively funded R&D in nukes the second the Iraqi war started.
2007-03-25 18:31:52 · answer #3 · answered by William S 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
That is what all the sane people of the world want, but no country trusts another enough to give up their arms. And as for the biological and chemical weapons there is almost no way to get rid of them completely. Small pox still exists in the lab.
2007-03-25 18:30:12 · answer #4 · answered by kittenbrower 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Too late...some countries in the Middle East already do have them.
2007-03-25 18:31:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
We will self destruct and reach this situation within the next t0 - 15 years!
2007-03-25 18:31:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
it might. the two big stick theory- both sides are less likely to attack when they are military equals
but it would be better if we all got rid of our wmds
2007-03-25 18:47:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It would be safer but not safe. Countries would still attack one another and terrorists would still be active.
2007-03-25 18:30:01 · answer #8 · answered by robot_hooker 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The would certainly de-escalate the tension, but Israel will never give up its nukes.
2007-03-25 18:38:28 · answer #9 · answered by qwiff_hunter 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is not going to work! Just look at Iran!
Besides that would be Communism!
2007-03-25 18:42:27 · answer #10 · answered by mark k 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋