Political Crossfire Forums

[U000U77]

Some geezer down in these other columns wants us to get rid of our nuclear weapons. Who thinks that sounds like a swell plan? 9 nations including us have them. Most of the nations are friendly to the US, but some are "untrustworthy". Now North Korea and I just found out Pakistan have nuclear weapons.

So, let's pretend each nation is a person, and the nuclear weapons are the amount of guns they have. Liberty is sitting at home, machine gun in hand, reading the paper, and drinking a cup of coffee. North Korea pops over a grassy knoll, fully loaded semi-auto, with a wild grin on his face. Okay, what do we think Liberty does?
a) Drops the machine gun
b) Invites the crazy man into her home
c) Shoot the bad@$$.
d) Duck for cover, call the police, and keep the gun in hand.

Who thinks we should dismantle our "guns" now?

[Dictator]

U000U77 wrote: Some geezer down in these other columns wants us to get rid of our nuclear weapons. Who thinks that sounds like a swell plan? 9 nations including us have them. Most of the nations are friendly to the US, but some are "untrustworthy". Now North Korea and I just found out Pakistan have nuclear weapons.

So, let's pretend each nation is a person, and the nuclear weapons are the amount of guns they have. Liberty is sitting at home, machine gun in hand, reading the paper, and drinking a cup of coffee. North Korea pops over a grassy knoll, fully loaded semi-auto, with a wild grin on his face. Okay, what do we think Liberty does?
a) Drops the machine gun
b) Invites the crazy man into her home
c) Shoot the bad@$$.
d) Duck for cover, call the police, and keep the gun in hand.

Who thinks we should dismantle our "guns" now?

OKAY I SAY WE edited by John Galt

[Melcar]

I say let everybody have them, but set up a commission (or the UN) that will monitor the amount of nuclear devices each nation has (ALL nations, not just the ones we don't like) and their potential usage (if you want to use a nuke just to test out or against your annoying neighbor you have to go through this commission first and get approval).

[Zampano]

Perhaps shooting North Korea would many years of unrest that would eventually cause more deaths than thowing in the towel would originally have done.
"There will be no world peace until every one is willing to take the world's suffering solely onto their own shoulders."

[Zampano]

So, to actually answer the question, how does either A or B sound to you?
I can imagine it would be awkward at that point.

[Esin]

I am of the opinion that nuclear weapons have a stabilizing effect on world politics. Thus far, it’s kept a major war from erupting on the Earth over the past 60 years. The invention of the nuclear device is arguably one of the best things to happen to humanity since someone invented sex as a means of reproduction. My guess is the more states that have them (rogue states excluded) the safer the rest of the world will be.
I do not however agree with the poster above that says that all nations should have them. Again, rogue states obviously can’t be expected to act reasonably with them, and some nations are not yet socially or infrastructurably stable enough to handle the responsibility of a nuclear arsenal.

[The Comrade]

Melcar wrote: I say let everybody have them, but set up a commission (or the UN) that will monitor the amount of nuclear devices each nation has (ALL nations, not just the ones we don't like) and their potential usage (if you want to use a nuke just to test out or against your annoying neighbor you have to go through this commission first and get approval).



yeah that would work swell :roll: