2007-11-01 02:33:12 · 15 answers · asked by number one fighting chicken 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
one for a public vote.
2007-11-03 09:12:42 · update #1
None, in my opinion.
2007-11-01 02:35:56 · answer #1 · answered by Ivor Hugh G.Rection 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Actually a very good question. Look at it this way--pretend there are no police--no constitution--just a collection of homes where you live. There are several familys on the block that have been known to steal, rape, rob. A number of familys on the block were able to make a pistol, and found that those "bad" familys didn't mess with them. It was discovered that some of these "bad" familys were working on making their own pistols. Do the live and let live decent neighbors band together and eliminate the ability of the "bad" familys to make this weapon--or do they wait until the "bad" family is a major threat to everyone. Iran--North Korea--folks like these are as the president has said "rogue" nations. Germany in the 1930's was a "bad" family. If the Europeans had not used their policy of apeasement and live and let live (they got it wrong twice last century and still believe the same tripe) then perhaps 25,000,000 of their decent familys would still be alive today. Decent countries don't want what isn't theirs--decent countrys don't want to wipe their neighbors off the face of the planet--decent countries don't fund and aid thugs that wish to harm men, women, and children for thier own gain.
2007-11-01 02:45:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
None at all
And for America to bang on about other countries not being allowed to have them is hypocritical in the extreme. They remain the only country ever to have used a WMD, not once but twice, when there was no need for even using the first one.
2007-11-01 02:43:32 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Not one single country. WMDs lead to mass destruction of the entire planet.
2007-11-01 03:59:19 · answer #4 · answered by Gaia 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why does any country need to have them?
The only plausible reason I could think for any country to need them is if they are only looking out for themselves and trying to better someone else. If we have a global mindset and not trying to cheat then they are not necessary.
I think more people are peaceful then not. We need to kick the violent dummies to the curb. Jail them. I'm not just talking physical but mental also. I cannot stand the overall ME generation. They have done a lot of damage.
2007-11-01 02:43:33 · answer #5 · answered by Unsub29 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Papua New Guinea
P.S. by allowed, you mean there would be someone who would disallow it? Like UN? Great concept , bad implementation.
2007-11-01 02:38:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If none of them had WMD's how peaceful would that be?
2007-11-01 02:38:42 · answer #7 · answered by pirate_princess 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
all weapons can be of mass destruction. give a lunatic enough time with a knife and he would kill as many as he can. but for single episodes of murder ant that is what we are talking about no state should have tha ability to commit genocide and that is what it would be. that is what nuclear weapons are the ultimate weapon of genocide
2007-11-01 03:29:29 · answer #8 · answered by BUST TO UTOPIA 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The big Western ones that we like - y'know, if they dress like us 'n' think like us etc - none of the Arab lot. Or Africans. Or Asians come to think of it. Or Chinese.
2007-11-01 02:45:08 · answer #9 · answered by sicoll007 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
1.None on the sponsoring terrorist list
2. None that don't already have them.
2007-11-01 02:39:07 · answer #10 · answered by commanderbuck383 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
none.i don't know how we could tell someone they can't have wmds when we have them
2007-11-01 02:37:45 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋