Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should The United States Unilateral Disarm All Our Nuclear Weapons?
I am sure my opinion is basically the same as everyone else's. To unilaterally disarm all nuclear weapons would put us at a terrible risk. It would be different if we were the only power in the world to possess these weapons, but we are not. While I believe the creation of these weapons was an atrocity to begin with, that doesn't change the fact that they exist and the only thing that keeps them from being used is the threat that the other guy will launch his if you launch yours. If there were some way to truly rid the world of nuclear weapons I would be all for it. But the sad truth is some power-bent freak would hide a few away. I don't think we could ever truly rid the world of these weapons of global destruction. So I think while it would be cool to scale back our arsenal(since we have enough to blow up the world many times over) we should not disarm completely. A link posted above stated simply Nuclear detterant is right on target. We should never plan to use these weapons, but in this day and age we must keep them around.
No, we shouldn't disarm, but at the same time we should realize that we shouldn't expect other countries not to develop weapons simply because we feel they are evil. We are seen as evil to other countries based upon our actions and we posess weapons of mass destruction.
No we should not. It is the fact that we can retaliate with massive destruction that has kept more than one country from attacking us.
I also firmly believe that those who support terrorism also fear a potential retaliation if we learned that someone they supplied used such a weapon on us.
I have no problem with a nuclear readiness to defend America. I have a huge problem with a nuclear readiness to defend America's interests. That goes for conventional warfare, too, not just nuclear.
America's civilian police forces number about a million. Our ready reserves are another 2-million. A foreign power would not be able to occupy us without at least 10-million armed and trained men on the ground. 3-million to neutralize our police and reserves, and another 7 million to police and control a population that, even without fighting an underground gurerilla war, requires a million cops to keep under control.
How, and from where, are ten million occupation forces going to deploy across the ocean, land on our shores fully armed, logistically support themselves, and subdue maybe 100-million Americans who own weapons and are itching to use them? And how many more millions of support personnel to convert all our churches to mosques, distribute black gowns and scarves to 150-million women, teach us all to speak Arabic, burn and bury 50-million hogs.
Send me a link that explains how this can be done, and why we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year preparing for it.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,839,626 times
Reputation: 7186
Well, I certainly hope that it would be unilateral if we disarmed all of our nuclear weapons. I would really hate it if someone else did it for us or helped us do it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
