Bush, Putin Urge Countries Against Nukes

[Chaotic42]

I don't understand you people. Nuclear weapons are very dangerous. If anyone has them I'd like it to be some manner of stable country, like England, the US, or Canada. It's not a good thing for *anyone* if countries like Pakistan, North Korea, or Lybia have nukes.

"Oh, but if one country has nukes, everyone sould be able too, it's not fair!"

This isn't kindergarten. You're talking about things that could very easily destroy 95+% of human life on this planet.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: ELP
Flyer, how old are you?

Sorry for the late response, I haven't checked this thread in awhile... I'm 21 years old, will be 22 in 2 months. Why do you ask? Most everyone I know considers me quite mature for my age.

 

[Flyermax2k3]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I don't understand you people. Nuclear weapons are very dangerous. If anyone has them I'd like it to be some manner of stable country, like England, the US, or Canada. It's not a good thing for *anyone* if countries like Pakistan, North Korea, or Lybia have nukes.

"Oh, but if one country has nukes, everyone sould be able too, it's not fair!"

This isn't kindergarten. You're talking about things that could very easily destroy 95+% of human life on this planet.

Better that no one has them then. The only reason nuke proponents ever mention in support of nukes is deterance. Violence begets violence as does the threat of violence. I used to have a "nuke em all" attitude up until earlier this year, especially in the aftermath of 9/11. Then I woke up and saw nukes for what they really are - Weapons of Mass Destruction. That term gets bantied about quite a bit in the press so it's lost most of it's meaning, but think about it for a second. What are WMD? They were designed with one purpose in mind and that is death and destruction. If anyone can make a case for death and destruction I'd like to hear it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I don't understand you people. Nuclear weapons are very dangerous. If anyone has them I'd like it to be some manner of stable country, like England, the US, or Canada. It's not a good thing for *anyone* if countries like Pakistan, North Korea, or Lybia have nukes.

"Oh, but if one country has nukes, everyone sould be able too, it's not fair!"

This isn't kindergarten. You're talking about things that could very easily destroy 95+% of human life on this planet.

Better that no one has them then. The only reason nuke proponents ever mention in support of nukes is deterance. Violence begets violence as does the threat of violence. I used to have a "nuke em all" attitude up until earlier this year, especially in the aftermath of 9/11. Then I woke up and saw nukes for what they really are - Weapons of Mass Destruction. That term gets bantied about quite a bit in the press so it's lost most of it's meaning, but think about it for a second. What are WMD? They were designed with one purpose in mind and that is death and destruction. If anyone can make a case for death and destruction I'd like to hear it.

the weapon to end all wars?



nice article rahvin!

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
nice article rahvin!

Thanks! It's an interesting theory and appears to have good KGB backing but they were wrong about one thing. Warfarin isn't tasteless.