It would be a good example for the rest of the world.
2007-10-11 16:06:52 · 33 answers · asked by Villain 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I asked this....because as long as WMD's exist, other nations will try to aquire the techonology.
If we are the leader of the world, we should be a good example, and recondsider nukes.
2007-10-11 16:09:51 · update #1
smooth, may I suggest you go get some help. Very soon.
2007-10-11 16:59:38 · update #2
If every other nation is required to have nuclear inspections, then the U.S. should be required too.
We are not better than anyone else out there. We are not masters of the universe. We're not the boss of everyone. We should be submitted to the same requirements as other nations, period.
2007-10-11 16:15:56 · answer #1 · answered by Jeremiah 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Yes. With a robustly interpreted Second Amendment, U.S. citizens should be the ones keeping and bearing arms, so UN inspectors should be sent to make sure the U.S. Government isn't wasting precious tax dollars building superfluous WMD's.
2007-10-12 18:05:52 · answer #2 · answered by Rationality Personified 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They would find out they are the best armed country in the world and that would ruin their façade of being the saviours of peace an stuff. they should anyway, why should they be the only country allowed to do whatever they want? And don't say because the always save the day. many times it's their fault that terrorists should be lose in the world. Bin Laden was recruited by the CIA and now they pretend they don't know him.
The UN is just another of Washington's puppets already. Why weren't sanctions administered when they discovered there were no WMD in Iraq? Because they were busy attending the auction where Iraq was sold into pieces to the highest bidder
2007-10-11 16:15:04 · answer #3 · answered by Der weiße Hexenmeister 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
While, yes, it would be good, as it would (hopefully) clear America of any accusations of an arms build up, and as you said set a good example for the rest of the world, America is a big country. The UN has limited resources, and to go around the US and checking every single possible weapons silo in America would take a loooong time. These experts would be put to much better use in a less stable country that is actually considering using their weapons once they develop them.
2007-10-11 16:12:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The US does not deny having nuclear weapons, it is not an active participant in non-proliferation.
The UN is not a sovereignty, it is an organisation of the treaties of sovereign nations, held together at the luxury of the willingness of the United States to enforce them. Essentially, it has no purpose. Nor does non-proliferation. People will find more inventive ways to cause mass destruction beyond the whims of the United States government. That conviction is greater than any one country, and especially any one government.
2007-10-11 16:14:03 · answer #5 · answered by thalog482 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
My,my Anthony, you ARE a walking, talking, enigma. USAF, yet a liberal. Catholic as well (which we all know in anti abortion and anti gay) yet still a liberal. Hmmmmm. Soft core porn on your My-Space, yet a praying Catholic. A liberal AND a socialist too!! Whatever fits your current mood?? Listen, you seem like a nice guy, but please face reality. (That might be difficult with someone with so may diverse labels as yourself). Try to imagine the world (in REALITY now, not how you think it SHOULD be in your naive mind) If the U.S. didn't have all those WMDs. Can you possibly imagine the carnage if we weren't there with the threat of our WMDs ??? Try to think (T_H_I N K) what would actually happen if we destroyed all our weapons. News flash--------it wouldn't be all hearts and flowers and peace throughout the world. It would be the beginning of the end. I wish I could live in a world where your ideals would solve everything. But reality is that there are people out there who HATE YOU, and everything you stand for. And the minute you disarmed, they would be laughing at you and spreading their hate, murder and torture as fast as they could. It's sad but it's the reality that Liberals fail to grasp. Wake up, Anthony. Your little world may be one big love in but the REAL world isn't.
2007-10-11 16:39:11 · answer #6 · answered by GSmooth 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
The IAEA already sends nuclear inspectors to all US nuclear weapons sites.
They have since the IDEA was created.
So I guess the US is a good example to the world, after all.
2007-10-11 17:50:11 · answer #7 · answered by jeeper_peeper321 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course, with all these this extremism and fascism from USA, they should. At least, other nations should join together to make a front about a possible invasion from this dangerous country.
2007-10-12 14:45:41 · answer #8 · answered by HeathySurprise 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Does anyone really care about the UN anymore? Just curious. And why can't we have wmds? We have nukes, they are wmds we have some gas and chem those are wmds. Just that there is no one around right now that can do anything about it.
2007-10-11 16:10:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
No, in fact we already have WMD's and plenty of them. What the UN should do is vacate the property in Manhattan, and go build a new building someplace in Africa where it's total corruption of it's original intent will be acceptable...........
2007-10-11 16:11:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I agree with your opinion and it is about time every nation is equal to each other. It will be a good example for the rest of the world.
2007-10-11 16:11:53 · answer #11 · answered by ryladie99 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋