Re: nuclear weapons
 

Let' s analyse this under the financial aspect. Arm every country with an atomic bomb. Ok, you' ll get €€€ because we all know A-bombs aren' t cheap nowadays. But... But a country will think twice before attacking another country that has an A-bomb. Now there would be no war. War is a business and the selling of small arms and vehicles would slow down. Do we want that?

EDIT: oh, yeah, A-bombs shouldn' t be used. Don' t try this at home.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

Id rather everyone have them. Total 100% MAD.

In the first place Id rather NO ONE have them though.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

No, Nukes are just too dangerous to keep around.

If we gave every country in the world a nuke, at least one of them would have been used within 5 years, I have no doubt in my mind of that.

Threats are nice, but if they know you wouldn't use them because you would get FLAK for it internationally, the enemy won't really care.

In the current state of the world, Nukes are pretty much useless in the war on terrorism, which is what I'm kind of focusing on right now.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

It depends on what country has a nuke. lol, North Korea... i dont think they should. Their leader is crazy.
But on the other hand, one nuke ended 700,000 lives in a matter of seconds. (Dont correct me)
Not to mention two of those were launched. Nuclear War could be the end to all wars, and not in the good way.
we need a superpower to keep everything in order. And no offence to other countries, but if America could fix their major gaps, they should be the superpower.
The U.N. was created to fix these problems. But their not doing a very good job.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

Nuclear weapons have saved infinitely more lives than they have taken. They were originally built to be weapons of mass destruction, but ironically they have probably kept the peace longer than any alliance or international law ever could. Nothing keeps the peace better than a healthy fear of death. That alone is enough of a reason for them to remain in service until such a time when humans are capable of getting along with each other, when pigs can fly, and when Barbie inherits the universe (read: never).

Re: nuclear weapons
 

As has been stated, nuclear weapons have saved millions of lives. The number of casualties after WWII from war dropped by something like 90% or some such ridiculous number.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

The though of going up a mushroom cloud works wonrders on about %90 of the people in the world. Why die when you can work things out? The other %10 don't have a nuclear weapon, but would like one to use(Iran wiping Isreal off the map)

I don't think they should be used in the way we use regular weapons. But if comes down to saving millions of american lives, and ending millions of Iranian/Korean lives, I will take saving my fellow countrymen before anyone.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

Israel probley has some nukes laying around though. If Iran tried anything that stupid they would get MAD. Really MAD.

Not to mention Israel has a number of Muslim holy sites in it, and a fanatic like the Iranian dictator wouldn't want to blow them all up.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

People quote nuclear weapons as a saviour of life, yet somehow thousands of people have now died in Iraq in order to remove these peace-keeping gizmoes. Surely, if nuclear wepons were such a blessing for humanity, nobody would object to all countries having them.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

"Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds"-Robert Oppenheimer

sums nuclear weapons up very well