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.