We already have several mounted for delivery.
2007-10-09 01:44:39 · 16 answers · asked by Locutus1of1 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Even if sometimes we feel that the world might be better off with these people being killed, even I, as militaristic as I am, don't want to just kill everyone. There has to be some kind of restraint.
Restraint meaning, of course, that conventional, non-radioactive bombs should be used.
2007-10-09 01:49:16 · answer #1 · answered by null 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yeah, 200 is all is needed to destroy the world. We all have far more than that.
So yeah. But it's not gonna happne. You know why? Because having nuclear weapons is a status of power. It means, if you invade me, I will f*ck the Sh*t out of you, even if that means you'll retaliate. See, nobody's invading N Korea right? Any guesses as to why?
Nukes are gonna keep spreading. Instead of stopping this disgusting technology that can kill so many pplz, keeping it to the countries with prestige only increases their prestige, thus more nukes.
Yay. What a wonderful future.
Edit: Planksheer awesome answer. Probably is Cheney lol.
Wtf r pplz giving me thumbs down? I never said I liked nukes, I'm against them. I'm just saying keeping it to a few countries increases their prestige.
2007-10-09 08:48:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
It's actually not a bad idea. No country has ever invaded a nation which possesses nuclear arms. If everyone had them, things might get tense now and then, but more likely you would have an unprecedented era of military peace with lots of threats and innuendo being tossed about. It might even force the industrialized world to start behaving more fairly in regards to the developing world. The only nations that might decide to use them in an attack are the nations without hope, where death would be a blessing compared to living in extreme poverty. In this hypothetical world the industrialized nations would be forced to stop exploiting the resources of poorer nations and allow the people who live in them to exploit their resources for themselves. It seems contradictory, but nuclear weapons have brought peace to the nations which possess them.
2007-10-09 09:06:23 · answer #3 · answered by mick t 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because a nuke causes mass destruction. We wouldn't want those countries that act like 3 year olds to start hitting their playmates with nukes now would we?
2007-10-09 08:47:03 · answer #4 · answered by Brent H 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
(If you mean bomb them) Oh no.... Probably because we would be killing all of those people, we would look like a bigger bully than we already are thus inevitably beginning a 3rd world war which could end the world 4 times over! No thank you; I'd rather die from fighting zombies with my magnum and a katana.
2007-10-09 08:51:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I'm in favor of giving a nuke to any country that wants one,...preferably delivered from about 30,000 feet !
2007-10-09 09:12:58 · answer #6 · answered by thehermanator2003 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
True. The delivery system is quicker than FedEx..
.
2007-10-09 09:08:31 · answer #7 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You need a new watch battery to power up your brain
2007-10-09 09:14:53 · answer #8 · answered by McQ 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I can see it now, The Jamaican Bobsled/Nuclear Strikeforce Team.
2007-10-09 08:47:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
i say if a country wants to make a nuke then let them make one. who made the us the bully on the playground? why is it up to us to take all these matters into our own hands. its not and bush doesnt realize that. apparently the UN doesnt realize that... we are like the UN hitman i think. they need something taken care of so they call us
2007-10-09 08:48:49 · answer #10 · answered by Dauntilus 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋