If there were no reasons for small Third World countries to own WMD's

[KlatooBNikto]

Bush's War on Iraq has given them plenty of reasons to do just that.And now there are willing partners like Iran, North Korea and Pakistan to give them the weapons and the missiles they need.

[JaneDoughnut]

1. Agreed.

Why do nations develop nukes? It's usually a deterrant, right? The more radical and hostile the world becomes, the more these nations will feel like they need nuclear weapons. And do we really have the right to prevent that development, when we are still researching new nuclear technology here at home? That's where non-proliferation needs to start.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Better question, is there any sane reason for any country to have them?

I never have been able to come across one.

[KlatooBNikto]

3. Of course,no sane person wants them, but who says we are a sane

species?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Actually, I believe that most people are sane.

Can't say the same for the bosses who are so egomaniacal that they would even consider using WMD.

[Jack_DeLeon]

4. Didnt you read the first post that started this thread?

Obviously nuclear weapons = detterence.

There is nothing insane about wanting to protect yourself and your people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. Nothing insane?

I find it incredibly insane to even think of killing millions of people in retaliation for killing millions of people. Most countries in the world seem to get along without them.

[Jack_DeLeon]

7. Most countries...

Iraq doesnt seem to be doing so well now is it?

Then again who cares about those kinds of countries, as long as the countries that I like are doing okay and arent being invaded or conquered who needs nuclear weapons, right? :eyes:

For just about the same reason civillians own firearms, nations own nuclear weapons.

People own firearms because sometimes the police dont come, or if they do it will be too late.

Alot of nations cant rely on the good will of other nations. Did any other nations or did the UN ever come to the aid of Iraq?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. So, you favor killing them?

We attacked Iraq. So, that would be a good rationalization to kill tens of thousands of other people?

Same goes for firearms. Most civilized nations on the globe have real gun control laws. Funny how their murder rates are so much lower than ours.

[Jack_DeLeon]

10. No, but if Iraq really did have WMD...

we wouldnt have even attacked in the first place.

Look how North Korea got off.

[KlatooBNikto]

9. I never thought we would reach a stage when

we would wish for the days of Mutually Assured Destruction between the Soviet Union and the U.S. As nuclear weapons proliferate and other forms of WMD's including Chemical and Biological weapons start their insidious way into our vocabulary, be assured that Bush's contribution would be enormous.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. "preventive war", "collateral damage", "unfortunate mistakes"

"heroic troops", "defense", "deterrence", "protection", "detainment of combatant", "send a message", etc, etc, ad nauseum. All exucuses for murder and murderers.

The Orwellian double-speak has taken over our vocabulary.