That the Saudis want nuclear weapons to defend against other nuclear powers (Israel and,potentially, Iran) makes the case for Iran having nukes: the only defense against a nuclear power is a nuclear deterrent. That is what Faisel is saying. The same argument applies to Iran and any other nation?<br />
<br />
The only way to fend off an attack is to have nukes. So either no one should have nukes (all vulnerable) or all should have nukes (all defended). That some may have nukes (and thus self-defense AND the ability to strike non-nuke nations with impunity) and some are not allowed is inherently unfair. <br />
<br />
When the US criticizes Iran for developing nuclear energy (no evidence of weapons) with the "potential" to start a weapons program, it is a power living in a giant glass house throwing stones. <br />
<br />
Both Reagan and Obama spoke publicly about a world without nuclear weapons. The new Start was ratified a year ago and will reduce nuke launchers by half. Republicans in the Senate voted 3/4 against the Treaty, but 13 crossed over to pass it. People often say that Dems and Repubs are just the same, and often that is true, but here is another case where, if you want to reduce nuclear weapons on both sides, you need Democrats in office. Only by reducing our own nuclear arsenal can we earn any credibility in telling others they cannot have nukes. Only when either no nations or all nations have nukes will we be free to kill each other the old-fashioned way, with conventional bombs, with fire bombs, and with chemical weapons. And only then will people not see nuclear war scenario as a kind of video game for their amusement. <br />
<br />
The gun nuts like to say: an armed society is a polite society. Why not apply this idea to international relations: an armed world (each able to destroy any other) is a polite world. <br />
<br />
Sadly, the evidence of a past Harvard study of 2000 arms races in history showed that in 98% of the time, war resulted. But are those mad nukes different: total destruction the price of starting a war?<br />
Risk the 98% chance of a nuclear war, as predicted by history, or trust the Mutually Assured Destruction theory, which assumes some madman will not go nuclear but all pla<x>yers will be rational(but where in history have madmen ever ascended to power?). Take your chances...or work for nuclear disarmament and peace.

Best Answer

wut up with all this war stuff?!?! SERIOUSLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>( all im getting from these wars is that people are killing other people over weapons, money, and anything for that matter!>( i mean, if you want pride, dignity, and respect, then stop fighting and killing, and live in peace with each other instead of getting mad at such LITTLE things. i know not many people would listen to a 13 year old, but i strongly feel this way about war. anyway, thats a 13 year old's point of view about this. i may not have any power over the war(right now anyway), but i strongly hope that you feel this way, too!:)

Best Answer

Why all the War talk! We should send them dope cookies so that they can all mellow & chill amongst each other.

Best Answer

No wth were just gonna attack for that? They haven't shown any signs of war or anything, they just want weapons which is understandable in this day and age. Plus attacking a holy place is just asking for trouble from outside and INSIDE the United States, there are Muslim Americans too..

Best Answer

which they totally can be

Best Answer

No, there has been enough war in this world.

Best Answer

No. Why start a war just because they got weapons? Saudi Arabia is a US friendly country. Why would they?

Best Answer

no we should give them some of ours.<br />
<br />
everyone should have a nuke, not just us

Best Answer

Damn right. Who made us cops of the world?

Best Answer

Related Questions