Was the Nuke really necessary? - Page 5




 
--
 
June 11th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
Well, thats fine when youlive in sweeden. I was a part of a security team in pre-school fair yesterday. Children here play with armed guards around them. Some countrys(like Israel) just cant let their guard down.
June 11th, 2004  
Tessa
 
 
As I said, I don't mean to attack any country, I am just pointing out a theory wich may work to get rid of nuclear.

I totally understand Isreals point in this and I can see why they can't let their guard down.

It's to bad to hear that the children got to play with armed guards around them.
June 11th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
Nahh...they dont know anything else...Make faces at me ...With my Police cap, Carabine and all...


--
June 12th, 2004  
Rotty261
 
 
What would stop a smaller, less powerful country from trying to destroy the US with their own nuke once we have disarmed ours? I think the day the US announced it had disarned all of it's nuclear weapons we would have several flying toward our country from several different directions. How many countries in the world would like to have the claim that they destroyed the almighty USA.....I think lots of countries would like that title, like all of the countries we have had conflicts with and not to mention all of the countries where we have troops in place to stop civil wars from errupting. If we lay down our Nukes we are setting ourselves up to be destroyed.....
June 12th, 2004  
AFSteliga
 
 
You've got a very good point there. It's unfortunate that nuclear power was made into a weapon. We wouldn't be having this discussion if that was the case.
June 13th, 2004  
Uncle_Sam
 
 
Well.. that's pretty much true.
June 13th, 2004  
Marksman
 
 
Ok this is off,but how come if world WMD termination progarm is on and they are taking all the nukes from every conutry,how come that they dont take nukes from Russia and USA.Isn that some kind of monopole??
June 13th, 2004  
Gunner13
 
 
You overlook the fact that both Russia and the US have agreed to reduce their nuclear stockpiles. In addition, the US has recently agreed to use the nuclear material in the surplus warheads and fuel for neclear reactors, something that the US government had been opposed to until recently.

The problem we have, again, is proliferation and the possible use by
non-state actors (i.e. terrorists).
June 13th, 2004  
1217
 
Funny intermezzo:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Lehrer
Who's Next?
One of the big news items of the past year concerned the fact that China, which we called "Red China," exploded a nuclear bomb, which we called a device. Then Indonesia announced that it was going to have one soon, and proliferation became the word of the day. Here's a song about that:

First we got the bomb, and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.
Who's next?

France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears,
They can't wipe us out for at least five years.
Who's next?

Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white.
Who's next?

Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense.
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb.
Who's next?

Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.
Who's next?
Who's next?
Who's next?
Who's next?
That Russia and the US are decreasing the number of nukes isn't that big a deal, it just means they now can only destroy eachother 10 times instead of 15, but one time is all it takes.
June 13th, 2004  
Tessa
 
 
Haha..