Some Moran
(675 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-20-03 12:16 AM
Original message |
Do you believe any nation should have nuclear weapons? |
|
My opinion?
Taiwan and only Taiwan.
|
1songbird
(642 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-20-03 12:18 AM
Response to Original message |
1. No nations should have nuclear weapons |
Some Moran
(675 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-20-03 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
A progressive democracy threatened by its fascist neighbour?
But on the other hand, I wouldn't want Taiwan to have nukes if Soong ever had executive power...I hate him even more than I hate Bush.
|
1songbird
(642 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-20-03 12:28 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. Sorry but no nation should ever have these weapons. |
|
Hiroshima should be a lesson to us all.
|
Sting
(403 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-20-03 12:22 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Nobody should have weapons that can blow up the world 10 times. That's just insane.
|
tokenlib
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-20-03 12:28 AM
Response to Original message |
4. If Bush stays in power--and I was in any other country--- |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-20-03 12:29 AM by tokenlib
going nuclear would be great--at least he'd leave us alone.
But in a perfect world, it would be nice if nuclear weapons would just go away. With decent leadership in the USA--it would be nice if we could just freeze the number of nuclear powers. Or even promote nuclear disarmament. But never with the current regime.
|
Hippo_Tron
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-20-03 12:38 AM
Response to Original message |
6. Well we already have them therefore we don't have much of a choice, soo... |
|
"Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of destruction, we should be thinking about getting more use out of the ones we already have." - Jack Handy
|
JailBush
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-20-03 12:42 AM
Response to Original message |
7. What about biochemical weapons? |
|
The problem is that we now have biochemical weapons that can destroy the world. If no nation had nuclear weapons, we'd still have a hostage crisis.
And that b*stard Bush is developing still more weapons of mass destruction.
|
fujiyama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-20-03 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
Nuclear weapons are still in a category all of their own. No biological or chemical weapon can cause the sort of destruction a nuke can.
|
NickB79
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-20-03 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. With current biotechnology, I'd rate biological weapons as |
|
MORE destructive than nuclear weapons, when measured by the possible number of people killed. If someone were truly out to create a doomsday weapon that they could use to threaten the rest of the world, a genetically engineered, airborne virus could be devastating.
|
TexasMexican
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-20-03 02:00 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Aliens and asteroids if we dont have nukes. :nuke:
|
Fescue4u
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-20-03 02:03 AM
Response to Original message |
10. Doesnt matter. The cats out of the bag |
|
And if any nation has them, I sure as hell want the US to have'm.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 01:17 PM
Response to Original message |