Who should have Nuclear weapons - Page 3

halla · #21 (**permalink**) 02-09-2008, 06:22 AM

greed is not the accumulation of wealth, but what you do with that wealth.

BBC NEWS | Business | Buffett donates $37bn to charityBillionaire investor Warren Buffett has said he was waiting for decades to make a huge charitable donation. He said he was overjoyed as he spoke for the ...
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5115920.stm - 47k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Charity@Gates- International Business-News-The Economic TimesJun 17, 2006 ... WASHINGTON: The foundation run by Bill and Melinda Gates has a net worth of $29.1bn — putting it on a par with the gross domestic product of ...
economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1655692.cms - 41k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Daybreaker · #22 (**permalink**) 02-10-2008, 04:32 PM

Nobody should have nuclear weapons.

GreedIsYourGod · #23 (**permalink**) 02-11-2008, 10:08 AM

Halla, I am at work and don't have time to find my reference now but trust me I can show that American's are greedy and I mean greedy as in (love of the almighty dollar) as well as in (not giving very much to charity) we suck using either criteria.

Someone remind me to post my proof if I forget. Try to get to it tonight.

I may be off line a bit in the next few weeks because I am in Texas and I have Obama Democratic primary support work to do.

I am sick of greed and war and that is all Killary will give us if elected.

Seth_v · #24 (**permalink**) 02-14-2008, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by commonsense

What is this, do you want us to buy more copies of The Oil Depletion Protocol? When one source of power runs out, another will be created or found due to necessity; human improvisation.

That is a dangerous tought, so lets use it all, and when we need it, we will think of something while those with no means die.

The search for alternate mneans of energy has never been so important, we spent a century to use what we didnt in millenias.
You really think we will last long without worrying about alternate energy NOW?

And I agree, no country should have them. all countries should destroy what they have and the world needs to make sure nuclear energy is just that, and energy source nad nothing more.
But humans, oh the humans, how do they complicate things...

AmusedToDeath · #25 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 10:00 PM

If Serbia had a nuclear bomb, no country would ever bomb it...

But then again, Serbia did have long range missiles (not nuclear, of course) which could have reached the NATO military base in Aviano where the planes had been taking off, but those were never used.

jlp · #26 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dano

It sounds arrogant, but we are one of the very few countries that should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Yes, we used them and it was totally justified.
We know what they do, how, if and when to use them as a threat or use them in a justified action. Iran must NEVER have a nuclear weapon. The leadership in most of the Middle East counties is either too unstable or hate filled towards Israel and the U.S.A. You know that if Iran's lunatic leader every got a nuclear weapon and effective delivery system it would be heading towards Israel very soon.
I wish we did not have a need for them, but sadly the world stability is such that those type of weapons and the horrific destruction they pose is needed to control unstable nations through threat or; God forbid, the use of them.

So what gives the USA to right to say who can or cannot own them?

commonsense · #27 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth_v

That is a dangerous tought, so lets use it all, and when we need it, we will think of something while those with no means die.

The search for alternate mneans of energy has never been so important, we spent a century to use what we didnt in millenias.
You really think we will last long without worrying about alternate energy NOW?

And I agree, no country should have them. all countries should destroy what they have and the world needs to make sure nuclear energy is just that, and energy source nad nothing more.
But humans, oh the humans, how do they complicate things...

Try to understand this - hydrogen. Much better, more abundant, more replinishable, cleaner, cheaper (and many others) than oil. Oil is money, this is why we use it. When we 'run out' we convert to hydrogen until there is a self powered engine from gases in the environment. (I am currently researching a type of photosynthesis/biomechanical engine)

- please review the options before coming to the conclusion oil is the best energy source of all time

Herr Politik · #28 (**permalink**) 03-07-2008, 11:17 AM

But knives only kill one person at a time, were nuclear bombs have the potiential to kill millions, and leave a huge area of land unuable for 50 years. No country should have nuclear weponds. Eather all countries have them or non of them. Not one country, not even the U.S, has the right to control that much power, for as you said it is the people that are bad, not the weponds. Who is to say that a crazy man couldn't take control of one of these allies. Stalin and Hitler took control of very powerful countries very easly, only the next time the mad man might get nuclear capabilities. I agree that if every country had nuclear knowlege there would be a cold-war -like situation, were nuclear deterent is the only thing keeping the world alive, but it is better than a few big nations being able to bully all other nations, because this will happen as it always does when one nation get unamaginable amount of power over another.

constitution101 · #29 (**permalink**) 03-12-2008, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herr Politik

But knives only kill one person at a time, were nuclear bombs have the potiential to kill millions, and leave a huge area of land unuable for 50 years. No country should have nuclear weponds. Eather all countries have them or non of them. Not one country, not even the U.S, has the right to control that much power, for as you said it is the people that are bad, not the weponds. Who is to say that a crazy man couldn't take control of one of these allies. Stalin and Hitler took control of very powerful countries very easly, only the next time the mad man might get nuclear capabilities. I agree that if every country had nuclear knowlege there would be a cold-war -like situation, were nuclear deterent is the only thing keeping the world alive, but it is better than a few big nations being able to bully all other nations, because this will happen as it always does when one nation get unamaginable amount of power over another.

Maybe only permenant members of the UN security consule, like US

, China, Russia, France, and England

TrueAlbo2006 · #30 (**permalink**) 03-19-2008, 10:40 AM

.................................................. ......Iran wont have them.......

Israel is adding extra fuel tanks on their airplanes. They're gonna bomb Iran this year.
That's it...No nukes for Iran.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode