What if Iran says no? North Korea? What are we going to do?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071002/ap_on_el_pr/obama_foreign_policy
2007-10-02 13:43:42 · 12 answers · asked by Quickie D 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
it is like asking all the bad guys to drop their weapons.
2007-10-02 14:23:30 · update #1
obama is smoking crack
2007-10-02 13:51:40 · answer #1 · answered by a person of interest 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The US spends more on weapons and military than the rest of the world combined. And if you only count the countries we don't like, and who don't like us, we spend sixteen times all of them combined.
And for some strange reason, Republicans and most Democrats don't think this is enough!
People act like the minute we turn our backs, either Iran or North Korea are going to have millions of soldiers landing on our shores. How dumb is that? They don't want to attack us, they just want us to leave them alone!
More and more countries have acquired nukes since we got them. But nobody's used them since 1945, and this is because they know they can't win if they do. No national leader or military expert could imagine a scenario whereby he stood to win a war that started with a nuclear strike. Whoever uses them first becomes the villain of the world and the whole world will unite against them. This is why ALL nuclear countries (except the US, of course) have signed a no-first-use treaty.
-They- only want them because -we- have them. And by not aggressively going after North Korea, Bush has reinforced the desire of every tin-pot strong-man dictator to get nukes and get the US to leave them alone!
Under the circumstances, building more and more and more nukes is just dumb. It's a waste of money. We have enough already to kill everyone in the world ten or twelve times over, how many MORE times do we need to kill them?
As Carl Sagan put it, the nuclear arms race is like two people standing in a room up to their waists in gasoline arguing over who has more matches.
2007-10-02 20:54:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The elimination of nukes will be a disaster for the US since North Korea and Iran can subjugate the US using force.
VOTE for your choice as US President on my 360 degrees blog and know if Obama will likely win.
2007-10-02 20:50:14 · answer #3 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
greetings. great idea! nuke them and continue with the nuking of civilians as we did in Japan in 1945? start using nukes and open pandora's box to start world war 3? really a great idea there. so is suicide. helps with the world over population problem. Obama also said he was for nuking North Korea, what is his word on anything worth? about as much as Hillary's? That isn't a whole lot now is it?
2007-10-02 20:50:58 · answer #4 · answered by Rich M 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Not to mention Russia which has 1000s, or China that has a little over a hundred, or anybody else out there that has just ONE, ones enough to kill millions if put in the right place.
2007-10-02 20:51:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's easy. He will just tell America he has convinced them to disarm, or that they will only be using the technology for other reasons. Meanwhile he will pay them millions and millions of dollars as a bribe, and they will continue to secretly develop them anyways. Kind of like during the 90's.
2007-10-02 20:50:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Never happen until the US makes more powerful weapons .
2007-10-02 20:47:19 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
As he said, the U.S. would not disarm unilaterally.
However, I agree with him that it would be much harder for terrorists to acquire nuclear material if there were no such weapons-grade material to be had.
Plus, we need all out plutonium for nuclear power. Keeping it locked in bombs is a colossal waste of a vital resource.
2007-10-02 20:47:11 · answer #8 · answered by Steve 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
four of the same question basically in like 2 minutes... did Hannity just talk about this?
and he clearly explains it in the story you cite if you bothered to read it...
he says it's ideal but not something that will be done anytime soon?
2007-10-02 20:50:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Reagan wanted the same thing didn't he?
“Nuclear War cannot be won and hence must never be fought”
- Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev
2007-10-02 20:47:55 · answer #10 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Well, if he was anything like President Bush, we'd immediately invade Australia. Fortunately, I suspect Senator Obama would handle that problem more diplomatically.
2007-10-02 20:48:54 · answer #11 · answered by Beardog 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋