I am just curious, if 40 is a magical number or so?
2007-09-08 17:45:49 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
We really need only 6 missiles with nukes, not the current 12,000 (that we have only 2000 is Pentagon bull). More then that employed, would kill life on the entire planet anyway, for everybody, including the USA.
2007-09-08 18:04:33 · update #1
Simple: if you are a corrupt politician you need to entice companies to give you millions to stay in power and get re-elected. Companies don't just give out millions in campaign donations because of their strong sense of civic duty, they do it because it's a wise investment.
Example: Company A gives a politician millions. Politician turns around and awards bountiful government contracts to the company worth billions. The media overlook it, as they are owned by Company A. Company A now gets special tax breaks written into the tax code to protect their new billions on profit.
Hope that cleared it up for you. We need endless defense contracts, corporate welfare, agricultural subsidies, and endless other government programs to keep politicians in power, duh! Why else would we continue to build weapons past the 10x over or even 20x over point :)
2007-09-08 17:54:13 · answer #1 · answered by Eric578 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Because there are still a lot of primitive nations in the world who believe that strength and brutality is power. We have had relative peace all these years because these nations are afraid of that power.
I should add, however, the ones who are even sane enough to be afraid. Which brings us to the Islamics. No matter what the liberals think of their own country, nukes in the hands of these crazies will result in the loss of countless more lives than the ones already lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And to the people who actually think that the impotent and corrupt UN has any credibility or say in anything anymore...well, what can I say.
2007-09-09 01:28:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
We don't. We haven't had that many in a long, long time. Back during the height of the Cold War we did. So did the Russians. I believe we each had something like 50,000 nuclear weapons.
Nixon's SALT 1 and SALT 2 (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) treaties, followed by Reagan and Gorbachev's agreements, brought the total way, way down.
I believe each the US and Russians are down to under 2,000 weapons each at this time. The total is still falling as the US has announced some additional unilateral cuts.
2007-09-09 00:57:57 · answer #3 · answered by Yak Rider 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Given the current situation, I'm just waiting for the US to become the "world problem." It's just a matter of time before the United Nations turns on us if we continue on this reckless pattern and macho ego trip of world domination against "terrorists."
What if GW want's to nuke "the terrorists" since they are technically lawless and without a country, what exactly would that mean?
2007-09-09 00:59:22 · answer #4 · answered by Jackie Oh! 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because there are aliens out there that suck your soul out and the states wants enough nukes to save us our misery and take them with us.
Or maybe its so that is a bunch get destroyed, intercepted etc. the US could still blow the world up at least twice. lol.
2007-09-09 01:50:43 · answer #5 · answered by mattmonochrome 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
40 is better than 30 I always say.
2007-09-09 00:53:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Roosevelt wanted to have it for every country in the world one.
2007-09-09 00:52:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Peace through strength.
2007-09-09 00:51:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Just in case there is a population "explosion".
2007-09-09 00:54:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
because the warheads are on different types of delivery systems.
2007-09-09 00:51:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋