weapons, of mass destruction Options

[smile4me]

Should "weapons of mass destruction" be allowed to exist? is it necessary?
if so, what limitations/pacts/laws should be put on it?

if not, why? how will one prevent other countries from making these weapons in secret?

[fameONE]

As of right now, it is absolutely necessary for the United States to harbor WMDs. Mainly because the WMDs of the world have not been found and dismantled. If the US halted work on all of their weaponry projects, we'd be vulnerable to allowing our allied countries to be invaded. Even worse, we'd be vulnerable to invasions ourselves.

Here's the guns and butter scenario.
Guns protect us, butter feeds us. If the government buys too much butter, we'll be happy... happily awaiting to get "got" by someone who has more guns. But see, if we bought more guns, our people would starve (see: North Korea famine).

In the current state of international affairs, its like a meeting of Mafia Dons and Capos around a large table. Yes, they're all civil trying to reach an agreement but their Capos are keeping their fingers on the triggers because, at any given moment, something could go down.

[Pulchritude]

Well if its used for the wrong readon (which its used for) yes i think there should be a law for that.. but if its for good (which its probably not) yes i would support it.. but killing innocent people with it is just plain messed up.. and whoever kills any innocent person with weapon of mass destruction should get it 100 timez worse.

[Azn Kid from NY]

^America...

[funbobby]

I think unilateral is the word. Who wants a repeat of the Cold War? We have a beautiful planet, DO NOT let power and testosterone destroy it!

[ryfitaDF]

if other countries make them, don't give then a reason to use them. like occupying a country in the middle east for it's oil.

oh, crap.

[*wind&fire*]

^ how patriotic... america is always justified isnt it?

[fameONE]

Please don't turn this into a thread bashing the the country most of us live in. That would be pointlessly redundant and immature. Stick to the topic. The topic at hand is the necessity of WMDs not 'The American Gov't is Full of Shit.'

Grati.

[*wind&fire*]

personally i think there shouldnt be WMD anywhere.. or no weapons anywhere for a matter of fact.. but thats impossible

[heyyfrankie]

i highly doubt there is a way, or will ever be a way to stop other foreign countries from making WOMD. =/
i don't think that they should excist because all they seem to do is scare/threat people or kill them. i don't like war so, of course, i won't WOMD.
if we did put some kind of limitation on them, i would make it so that you could only use or make them if you are in war. but if that happened, than everyone would probably be declaring war on every country they hated...

[XoJennaoX]

It is funny and ironic how America must try and stop other countries from making WOMD, yet we have them and will continue to make them. Why are we the only country that is allowed to have them? Do other countries trust us that much? i think not.

Okay you can say these countries are more dangerous and eager to use them, BUT lets not forget one very important thing.....which was the only country to use WOMD?...yep thats right America!...we are still to this day the only country!

so wouldn't we be on the top of the list for not being allowed to harbor them? I am more scared of this country i live in and what we can do to other countries than what they can do to us.

[sadolakced acid]

you're right.

WMDs are bad.

the world should hold a bonfire, onto which they will throw all WMDs in the world.

then we'll be rid of them forever.


`note:

WMDs are definded as chemical, biological, nuclear, or conventional bombs/ missles/warheads/ etc.

[tmauze]

Establishing a law isn't going to prevent the existance of weapons of mass destruction. If someone is determined enough to go and construct a dumbass weapon, they are obviously determined enough to break the law because they're already breaking all morality in themself.

[*iNyCxShoRT*]

I think they should lock it up really safe like in a bank slot thingy with high security.

[*kryogenix*]

I think unilateral is the word. Who wants a repeat of the Cold War? We have a beautiful planet, DO NOT let power and testosterone destroy it!

Come on, that's a sexist low blow.

  It is funny and ironic how America must try and stop other countries from making WOMD, yet we have them and will continue to make them. Why are we the only country that is allowed to have them? Do other countries trust us that much? i think not.

We're not the only country that is allowed to have them. We have destroyed countless amounts of WMDs in the past, and are continuing to do so.

Okay you can say these countries are more dangerous and eager to use them, BUT lets not forget one very important thing.....which was the only country to use WOMD?...yep thats right America!...we are still to this day the only country!

Wrong. We are neither the only country nor the first country to use WMDs. We may have been the first and only country to use an atomic bomb during war, but bio/chemical weapons have been used before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and bio/chem weapons have been used after as well, specifically, Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds.

so wouldn't we be on the top of the list for not being allowed to harbor them? I am more scared of this country i live in and what we can do to other countries than what they can do to us.

See above argument.

[aera]

only use it when necessary.

[*kryogenix*]

only use it when necessary.

who determines that?

[sadolakced acid]

who determines that?

whoever's using them.


wonderful world we have. it should stay that way.

[XoJennaoX]

We're not the only country that is allowed to have them. We have destroyed countless amounts of WMDs in the past, and are continuing to do so.

Exactly my point....have we destroyed ours though? of course not! because again we believe we are the only country that is capable of having them.

Wrong. We are neither the only country nor the first country to use WMDs. We may have been the first and only country to use an atomic bomb during war, but bio/chemical weapons have been used before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and bio/chem weapons have been used after as well, specifically, Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds.

i was speaking of the atomic bomb of course. Why should we be allowed to still make WMD especially atomic bombs? and then all other countries that are a threat to us we destroy their weapons ... we are the biggest hypocrites in the world for that.

[rOckThISshYt]

Hmm... That's really hard to answer. It depends on one's intentions. If they're intentions with the weapons are bad (which they usually are), then no. If they're good, I don't see a reason why not.

[*kryogenix*]

Exactly my point....have we destroyed ours though? of course not! because again we believe we are the only country that is capable of having them.

Are you saying that we aren't really destroying them?

It would be stupid to just destroy all of our nukes at one time. we have treaties that say we will destroy x amount of nukes over x amount of time, which I think is the best way, because this means all parties in the treaty are lowering their number of nukes, while still retaining the ability to defend itself if another party withdraws.

i was speaking of the atomic bomb of course. Why should we be allowed to still make WMD especially atomic bombs? and then all other countries that are a threat to us we destroy their weapons ... we are the biggest hypocrites in the world for that.

I don't think we still continue to produce atomic weapons. Unless I'm mistaken, the only thing we do is maintain the weapons that we do have.

Why shouldn't we destroy the weapons of countries that are a threat to us? We aren't using unconventional weapons to destroy their weapons. Why is that hypocrisy?

edit:

think about this saying (actually this slogan was made in defense of the right to bear arms, but in principle, it's the same):

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it

[*mipadi*]

I don't think we still continue to produce atomic weapons. Unless I'm mistaken, the only thing we do is maintain the weapons that we do have.

We do; in fact, in the last several years, we have begun developing new nuclear weapons, including one gravity bomb capable of tunneling through 250 feet of bedrock before exploding.

[b0st0ngrl]

It is kind of impossible to destroy ALL of the WMD.