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?

[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!

[*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.