English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Wouldn't it be better for everyone to have one, so we can have mutually assured destruction?

2007-04-18 07:58:47 · 30 answers · asked by Longhaired Freaky Person 4 in Politics & Government Politics

sway, when we mass-produce them, the cost will go down.

2007-04-18 08:04:46 · update #1

30 answers

Damn good idea - sign me up!

I'd like a W-88 with extra Tridium on the side, please.

2007-04-18 08:00:36 · answer #1 · answered by Big Super 6 · 1 2

Nuclear weapons have been criminalized. Ask AQ Khan. Do you even know who A Q Khan is. Did you not know that it was illegal to possess the materials required to build a bomb, except for governments. The Discovery channel in a TV show called Nuclear Jihad has reported that A Q Khan may have provided some of the materials to create a nuclear weapons to Osama bin Laden. If it can be proved that Osama has nukes I would hope that the US would nuke him first. I do not need a nuke because I already own several 1,000. They are in the custody of the US Military.

2007-04-18 15:05:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Equaly distribution of nuclear weapons would neutralize the balance of power ! and would definitely help is eliminating the one threat to the world peace i.e some countries wage war agaisnt the others for the reason that they have nuclear weapons...heck the country itself don't mind having it !! Bless everyone with nuclear weapons or eliminate it from everywhere !! that would bring a proper balance !See when you would have it on indiviusal level, then governaments would go in the shadow !

Sarcastically ofcourse!!

I want to shoot that person who discovered this thing and created a great threat to Humanity..I feel sometimes that doomsday would result from one of the Nuclear explosion by some evil power !

Mr Fish !! Sorry but you have watched a wrong report...AQ khan was not having it on indivisual basis, he was a governament servent and actualy pakistani governament was supporting him for creating a bomb........and it is all been investigated on Bush's orders ( you know Pakistani Governament is an obedient pet of Bush) and there is no proof of A Q Khan connection with Osama. and if it were true, AQ would have been transfered to Gitmo long ago !!and Btw if Osama had this power, he would have nuked US long ago...why he is hiding all over the world???

Sorry sir ! using your platform illegely for answering !

2007-04-18 17:05:26 · answer #3 · answered by ★Roshni★ 6 · 0 0

You notice the United States has been resistant to give up its right to nuclear weapons, because we know that we are vulnerable without them. Other nations would hold on to them like North Korea etc. Your arguement about nuclear weapons is profoundly stupid as to few people can actually afford the cost of a nuclear weapon and the development of such is only built by government authority. Firearms have been spread on a world wide scale and number over a billion.

2007-04-18 15:04:41 · answer #4 · answered by trigunmarksman 6 · 1 1

Actually the Srategic Arms Limitation Treaty of 1972, made nations which expanded their nuclear arsenals or started developing nuclear weapons in effect criminal nations.
Some of Bush's proposals, particularly in the realm of anti ballistic missiles, violate this and other treaties we have signed. Certainly we are violating the Geneva Convention. I guess that means that under Bush, the US is becoming a criminal nation.

2007-04-18 15:26:08 · answer #5 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 2 1

i don't know a lot about nuclear, but it is the case with most weapons. if you make them against the law, only the law breakers (criminals) will have them. oh yeah, and the police. there just aren't enough of them to be there when needed though.

if just one of those kids at that virginia college had a weapon, just imagine how many of those kids would have lived.

2007-04-18 15:04:01 · answer #6 · answered by Burdoglovr 2 · 2 1

Ermmm... Isn't that already the case.

As we have seen, international laws against proliferation are doing very little to deter nuts like N. Korea and Iran from obtaining them. Further, it is mutually assured destruction that kept us from blowing the earth back to the stone age during the cold war.

2007-04-18 15:03:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

C'mon that a little extreme right? I have a gun and am liberal.I do and I will stand by this believe in Gun CONTROL not gun banning.Too many people though believe CONTROL is us wanting to take their guns away.I think there is a lot of misconceptions surrounding this issue and if everyone would take a minute most of us would agree on Gun CONTROL.

2007-04-18 15:06:28 · answer #8 · answered by Whiner 4 · 0 0

You don't have to go to school for 10yrs just to learn how to work with nuclear devices.

They have 12yr olds making exact copies of M16s, M4s and AK-47s in Iraq.

2007-04-18 15:03:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

People like you hippie libs are always looking to restrict our freedoms to own weapons of all kinds. You will only get my nuclear weapon out of my cold dead fingers (or the vaporized dust), and keep you hands off me you longheaired liberal.

God I felt bad when Heston's mind turned to mush.

2007-04-18 15:06:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

hey.... lets give really sharp knives to little children to so they don't feel left out at the dinner table... Please.... has common sense completely left you? There are those that stand for good... and those that want nothing more than evil. what do you think keeps these dictators in check.... though they are becoming more embolden the more the libs would like the US to bow at the altar of the UN.

2007-04-18 15:14:20 · answer #11 · answered by Mr. Perfect 5 · 0 2

fedest.com, questions and answers