Why cant all countries just agree to destroy all WMD so its fair to everyone?

Answer 1

Sure. You go first. Trust me.

Answer 2

Implicit in your question is a belief that wars should be fought fair. The point of war is to impose your will on someone/something else through the use and/or threatened use of force. The point of war is not to keep the score close. It isn't a video game. The point of war is to crush your enemy physically and spiritually. The point is to destroy your enemy's capacity and willingness to resist you. War is brutal, cruel, unforgiving and not to be taken lightly. We can debate all day long as to when warfare should be used, but when one tries to enter into a 'limited' style of warfare the costs to the aggressor nation are higher than the costs for all out war, and the results are almost always worse than hoped for. If a nation makes the call to go to war, they should do so keeping in mind the utter harshness of war, and they should not screw around by playing patty-cake and they should fight to win. If you don't have the ability or will to play for keeps it is imperative that you do not go to war, because it will cost you dearly in the end in terms of blood and treasure. Remember, it's WAR. Trying to slaughter people in a nice and fair way is not only oxymoronic, it's just plain old (wait for it) moronic.

A morbidly nice side benefit is that if a large enough advantage can be gained, a 'war' can be fought through pure intimidation, with very little blood spilled. It is obviously no less cruel, but military supremacy can shorten wars, and even prevent them from occurring in the first place or reoccurring later.

Answer 3

Maybe because no country in the world would ever think of letting their guard down by destroying their WMD's.

Answer 4

Everyone wants the edge, that's how America got to the top, we got the edge.
We got there through the Manhatten project, small pox research, Anthrax vaccinations, and having the absolute most amount of Nukes.

Maybe in the world of hippy-peace, love, and harmony this'd work, until then nobody trusts anyone else enough to let the grip off their nukes.

Answer 5

That would be a beautiful solution, but it really doesn't matter if you do destroy all existing WMD's, we know how to build more and so does the other guy.

Answer 6

Because "fair" isn't fair. It's depriving the more endeavoring populations from the successes they could enjoy because other populations were, in one way(s) or another(s), incompetent, lazy or otherwise not inclined to get their butts off the ground and do something besides living off the progress of others. God Bless you.

Answer 7

why? because the bad guys will lie and hide, its that simple, bad= terrorists, and any country that does not believe in freedom for the people, what will happen soon, small nukes will be deployed to certian areas of the world, destroying nuke plants w minor casualties, hence iran will behave and most so called extremists will shut down

Answer 8

cause historys a *****. you cant just tell everyone "okay now you get rid of yours and he will get rid of his".
besides how would you enforce it?
the u.s. is free from attack in large part for the fact that the u.s. can ANNIHILATE any enemy with our nuclear pile if it absolutely comes to it.
your the kind of person that brings a knife to a gun fight in a misguided attempt at fairness. the object of war isnt to be fair it is to win and a mushroom cloud just screams i win doesnt it?

Answer 9

Thats why america is building more and more wmd's and a new batch of nukes. And what nation (who fears america) wouldn't want to defend itself, but if iraqis fight back, they're labeled terrorists. how convenient.

Answer 10

because the first to give em up will be set upon by its enemies. theyre a deterrance weapon that i think should have been used against terrorists to send em a message

Answer 11

Because they don't trust each other to actually do that, and there are rogue states or groups that might acquire or develop them in the future.