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.

__________________
Christian, moderate conservative, willing to consider other points of view and compromise when appropriate.

If we all carried guns, then there would be no crooks.

But many gun-related deaths.

__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Blind acceptance is a dangerous practice.

If there were no guns for the law abiding public, the vacuum created would; in my opinion, raise crime to an unbearable level.
Bottom line is that the "box" is opened and we must understand that a balance of power includes the publics right to bear arms and protect themselves.
I do not want to get caught empty handed if someone breaks into my apt. I would hate to take a life, but better theirs than my wife or me.

__________________
Christian, moderate conservative, willing to consider other points of view and compromise when appropriate.

I think the world would be better off without nuclear weapons. Soldiers fighting in a battle is one thing, but killing thousands at a time (including innocent people) is just immoral

Granted, the use of nuclear weapons is terrible, but I still think it is neccessary to have them. If it werent for Hiroshima the United States and Japan wouldve lost millions and millions of citizens due to the invasion that wouldve taken place of Japan had nuclear weapons not been invented. Also nuclear weapons were the reason why the cold war remained cold. and didnt turn into World War Three.

As regards to the thread, I believe that nuclear weapons must be reserved to the few countries that can be trusted not to end the world- countries like Iran and North Korea cannot be trusted with such capabilities, harsh but true.

__________________
'A hippie is someone who looks like Tarzan, walks like Jane and smells like a Cheetah.'
Ronald Reagan

Too right Splitter, Too right......

__________________
'May no obstacles arise on the path of enlightenment!
May the enlightened intention of Those Gone to Bliss, past, present and future, be realised,
May I neither be bewildered in migratory existence
Nor I lulled by the solitary quiescence [of nirvana]!
But may I liberate beings throughout the expanse of space!'

- Tibetan Book of the Dead by Padmasambhava

i agree completely - neither of the two superpowers wanted to risk the kind of devestation that would have been caused by nuclear warfare. The cold war still lasted too long for either sides good

Here is Guns 101 for you

Guns aren't evil; PEOPLE are evil.

It is the person who pulls the trigger who is the problem not the weapon. Would you outlaw knives? People stab other people with them as well. It is alo worth noting that in many situations guns are used for good purposes such as self-defense.

Onto the actual topic, the US and it's allies are the few countries that can be trusted with nuclear weapons. If you say that everyone has the right to posses them then you have a situation where countries are constantly threatening each other. This would be a problem especially with radical Islamic and communist countries, we would live in a cut-throat world. With just the US, it's allies, and other friendly countries(excluding North Korea, who shouldn't have any in the first place)having them we help insure that another country won't make an aggressive move towards the allies.

__________________
“Good leaders abhor wrongdoing of all kinds; sound leadership has a moral foundation.”

-Proverbs 16:12

The Iranian regime is not a threat to the United States in general. It's a threat to American hegemony and imperialism. If you wish America to remain to be the superpower in our unipolar world, then there is reason to be suspicious of Iran. However, if you wish America to remain meek and equal, yet powerful, then Iran is nothing to fear. All actors in Iranian politics are rational, and do not wish to see a nuclear war. They are not lunatics. Iranian elite are well educated. The only thing that would happen if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, is that they would have a more equal say in international relations. I guess you can say the international system would be more democratic. But you cant equate a stockpile of nuclear weapons to a vote, and that's why some nations with too little to loose should never have nuclear weapons. But Iran has so much to loose, and they would act responsibly with a nuclear weapon.

Either you show ignorance of the Iranian regime, or support American hegemony and imperialism.

I entirely disagree with you. Fighting alone with conventional weapons was an inferior state that we've grown out of. It's much more deadly than strategic nuclear warfare. Actually, nuclear warfare doesn't even exist. There was no such thing. The use of nuclear weapons is strictly for deterrance of conventional war. There is less war because of nuclear weapons.

If you think about it, without nuclear weapons, the Cold War would've been a real war. There would've been nothing stopping Western countries from clashing with the USSR. Because both superpowers had nuclear stockpiles, there was a reason for the United States to limit its military involvement in matters such as Vietnam and Afghanistan. Yes, American efforts in Vietnam were limited. America could've put more punch in their Vietnam campaigns, but they didn't because if they did, it would provoke the USSR's direct involvement in the war...and that means Soviets shooting in the faces of Americans and vice versa. That would surely begin a nuclear war.

My conclusion on that point: the threat of nuclear warfare helped to dim down the bloodshed of the Vietnam War. Nuclear weapons are an aide towards peace, but the threat of them falling into the wrong hands needs them to be highly regulated.

There are other scholars, such as the highly respected U of Chicago professor Mearsheimer (who many of you would know as the writer of The Israel Lobby) who suggests nuclear proliferation in all major states. Columbia University professor and father of neorealism, Kenneth Waltz, also suggests that nuclear deterrence is a vital part of international relations.