• Answers
  • Web

Time flies like an arrow.

Fruit flies like a banana.

"If nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have ...

"If nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes."  

Is this true?  Is it a useful way to look at the issue of nuclear disarmament and proliferation?  Does it make sense?  Please think it through carefully and show your thinking.  This issue is too important to just rant about.


Share Send to a friend Watch Report
 
 

8 Posted Answers
Order by

 
Sammy
(deleted account)

Yes it is true. Weapons don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people. If the government took our guns away, then crime won't go down, there will just b more stabings and strangulations (which is the reason we should b able 2 KEEP our guns).--The same thing goes on a global scale. If they can't destroy a courty using nuks, then they'll just poisen the water/food suply, or flood the country with counterfits so the economy colapses. If someone wants someone dead bad enough, they will always find a way. If we take away our nuks, then all we r doing is making ourselves vonerable(yes, i know i spelled that wrong) 2 attack. There is no purpose in disarming ourselves. "Putting ur sheild down never stoped a bullet."-ME

 
29 helpful answers

Time flies like an arrow.

Fruit flies like a banana.

If we are talking about Russia or North Korea or Pakistan or Iran, our nukes might deter them.  But what if al Qaeda or Serbian ultranationalists (a plot line one year on 24) or a Mexican drug cartel or somebody like Timothy McVeigh or the Unibomber or the Joker or Ernest Stavro Blofeld stole, or bought a stolen bomb, from Russia or another country?  Who do we bomb then?  How exactly do our bombs deter them from setting their bomb off, or using it for blackmail and extortion?  I just dont see it.

When you are dealing with nuclear weapons, you have to think things through very carefully and figure out in advance what your countermoves are for anything that might happen.    I see no hint that you have thought about what to do in a situation where the use or threat to use a nuke does not come from a country.  

Here is a plot: We are cracking down on a drug cartel, and they want to make us shift our attention somewhere else and ease up on them.  They buy a tactical nuke on the black market, smuggle it over the border, and set it off somewhere in America.  We would have tremendous loss of life and would crack down even harder on them -- if we knew they were the ones who did it.  But what if they framed Al Qaeda for the attack?  Not only would we drop the crackdown on the drug cartel (what they wanted to achieve), we would take off after Afghanistan and Pakistan halfway around the world.  This could lead to a situation that did more damage to us than losing a few neighborhoods.  

Please try again, Sammy.

Posted 2009-04-07T06:02:54Z
 
Sammy
(deleted account)

That sinareo is a good 1, but if it wasn't a country moving against us, then we would have no use 4 nuks. And if they made it look like Al Qaeda is moving against us then, good. We need 2 blow them off the map anyway. I'm not talking about "going 2 war" with them. War has WAY 2 much politics mixed in with it. Just drop a bomb or 2 itl there no longer on the map, then turn our attention back 2 the drug cartel. problem solved.

 
30 helpful answers

I can do all things through Christ

The Country that keep all this nuke stuff going on is Russia. They sell the Intel, they sell the Urainum and all the time they smile in our face and stab US in the back. Once again I say The World Leaders need to come clean. They are either true about this arms race or pick up there marbles and go home. They are playing with my life and your life and everybody else life. People of the World need to make these  people (Democratically) get off their ass and have them represent us . They live lavishly of the back of the common men , women and children .The United States need to know whom they are working with. Government The four face beast at the throne of God.

I believe in protecting oneself/ country but we need to come down on those that insist on trumoil.Maybe we have arrive at the point to change the 12-21-12

Posted 2009-04-08T15:14:35Z
So On and So On was invited by Yedda to answer this question.

 
29 helpful answers

Time flies like an arrow.

Fruit flies like a banana.

Sammy 

I agree that if a nuclear threat against us does not come from a country, nukes do not do us much good.  But Al Qaeda is not a country and any place with lots of Al Qaeda has many more non Al Qaeda.  Al Qaeda hangs out in a large wild lawless Moslem area of Pakistan.  Nuking the whole area would take several H-bombs and would give Al Qaeda a giant recruiting pitch in all Moslem countries, so they would quickly become much bigger than before.  

Problem not solved.  Problem made much much bigger and spread to many other areas, including much of the world's oil supply.  Problem made much more dangerous.  

Remember how we helped the Afghan freedom fighters resist the Soviets so eventually they chose to get out of Afghanistan (like what they did to us in Vietnam)?  Those freedom fighters were fundamentalist Moslems.  They accepted our help against the Soviets, but they didnt like us either.  In order to organize to fight for what they believed in, they started Al Qaeda.  

Sammy, you just gotta know what's going on.  You gotta case the joint,have a plan, not just rush in guns blazing.  Our enemies are shrewd and sneaky.  They will do something to upset us so we rush in, and it will be a trap, a setup, an ambush.  That's why they bombed the World Trade Center, and when we got upset and responded by invading Iraq we gave them a gigantic present, big beyond their wildest expectations.  We weakened ourselves by spending a trilliion bucks, over 4000 soldiers, and a whole bunch of other stuff on a war we did not have to fight--and meanwhile let ourselves come close to defeat in the war we did have to fight--Afghanistan.  Osama got away, and he will likely die a free man unless Obama finds him.  

It's the story of Br'er Rabbit and the Tar Baby.  Vietnam was our tar baby.  Afghanistan was the Soviet's tar baby.   Iraq wasnt even a tar baby, just sheer ignorant stupidity.   

Posted 2009-04-09T06:05:13Z
 
Sammy
(deleted account)

I'm not saying we shouldn't have a plane. And we can always target their traning facilities were there r no inocent people around. Obama isn't going 2 look 4 him! His father was a musslem ratical. His name was accually Barry, but he changed it 2 Barak (the name of the horse that alah is 2 ride back on in the last days). He's bowed 2 their kings, yet refused 2 solute the American flag! He has more respect 4 them then us! By the way, this war WAS worth getting in2, and i don't think we should b backing out. Have we 4gotten what went through our minds on 9/11; watching people being crushed, or jumping from windows 2 escape the flames? cause it seems that we have. I have a freind that fought in Iraq, and he says he would do it again in a heart beat.

 
32 helpful answers

The ALL KNOWING ONEInnocent

Imagine!Tongue out

Mankind will destroy itself, it is in our nature unfortunately. The left behind books put a good twist on the end times.

 
28 helpful answers

Just because we may disagree doesn't mean your right.

The message of Christ is the kingdom of God.

What one says, does, or thinks is all relevent.

Look at it this way, the US and Russia have already been reducing the number of nuclear warhead, but sad to say they reduce by getting rid of the older bombs, only to build newer more accurate warheads. 

And who is to say which country would use them first, America of course, we have used them.  And after reading some of these posts, there are private citizens that appear to be quite willing to do it again.

And I've never heard how many kilo tons need to be used to burn up the planet, but we do know that a very few fired off into near space would destroy the electronics that would take this overpopulated, greedy, broke world and send it back at least to the 18th century. After which many in this world would turn to canabalism because there would be no way to feed everyone,  no way to get food to the masses.

The only way to get out with your life is through repenting to God, our Father, through His Son, Christ Jesus.  These are the only ones that can grant eternal life.  Whom in short order are about to return,  to redeem those that believe and to distroy the rest of earth, cleanising it and setting up the new order where there will be no weapons.

Posted 2009-04-17T05:18:01Z
RonaldV was invited by Yedda to answer this question.

Sign in to participate

Got an answer for severed2009? Would you like to comment on the posted answers, or vote for the one which you think is the best?

Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).

Explore Related Questions

Other people asked questions on similar topics, check out the answers they received:


Q:

What happens to a country that violates the ...

What happens to a country that violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty?
Submitted by aarond09   5 months ago.
  • viewed 78 times
Last answer posted 5 months ago by Rocmike3


Q:

Gun Sales Go Crazy! Fearing Obama's Assault On the Second Amendment ??

Gun sales are going out the roof since the election, due to Obama's plan on limiting the ability to purchase handguns and semi ...
Submitted by MarineReconDad   1 year ago.
  • viewed 193 times
Last answer posted 6 months ago by bart


Q:

Will Barrak Obama and Joe Biden Restrict your ...

Will Barrak Obama and Joe Biden Restrict your second Amendment Rights,Will they Restrict Firearms and Ammo?
Submitted by Space Coast Graphic Designs   1 year ago.
  • viewed 604 times
Last answer posted 11 months ago by southern7162



» More...

Feed - Subscribe to changes to this Q&A Blog
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Answers
  • Web
Copyright © 2006-2009, Yedda Inc. and respective copyright owners · CC License