If the US got rid of ALL of it's nuclear weapons do you think

[funkyflathead]

other nations (like Russia, China, England, Pakistan, NK, ect) would get rid of theirs?

[Selwynn]

1. I doubt it.

Not as long as there were other nations that remained a nuclear threat.

We'd also get nuked off the planet. People don't like us very much. :)

[w4rma]

10. I agree. Surviving Americans would glow in the dark.

Or live underground. :shrug:

[Wonk]

2. Not if it happened that simplistically.

I don't know of anyone credible seriously suggesting that the US should unilaterally disarm all nuclear weaponry.

[Syrinx]

3. I want to lead the world to disarmament

But I sure don't want to go first.

On Edit: That's kind of like my gun policy, come to think of it.

[JailBush]

4. On the other hand...

We could get rid of all our nuclear weapons but continue bluffing potential attackers with biochemical weapons, which could be even worse. I don't think disarmanent is absoutely impossible, but it's a real Pandora's box with all the weapons of mass destruction we've created - with more in the works.

It's really hard to imagine how we're going to survive without an extraordinary international agreement - which is precisely why we have to get George Bush and the Republicans out of the way - then turn our guns on the Vichy Democrats.

[TexasMexican]

6. Biochemical Weapons

You realize that we will no longer have any more chemical or biological weapons in a few years. Our entire stockpile is being destroyed, which IMO is a good thing. Still part of me thinks it was wrong to stop researching chemical weapons.

Biological weapons I can understand that it was a good idea to stop researching them, as they are mostly living things and could grow beyond our control.

However chemical weapons could have some uses which might warrent further research if not actual development.

If we really did have to kill off a large area on the earths surface are chemical weapons really that much worse than nuclear weapons?

IMO it would be better to use chemical weapons since it would like not leave the area contaminated for as long it would if it were a nuclear weapon. Additionally chemical weapons are more localized and wouldnt have fallout spreading through the jetstream.

That being said chemical weapons would do absolutely nothing against hardened well built bunker. Which would leave the leadership in dicatorships like North Korea worrying very little if that was all we had.

[JailBush]

9. No, I didn't realize that.

"You realize that we will no longer have any more chemical or biological weapons in a few years."

I wasn't aware of that, and it's hard to believe. If George Bush says we're destroying them, then that's a pretty good clue he's rapidly expanding our biochemical capacity.

[TexasMexican]

5. No.

If anything they would probably all get together and launch a few at us just to put us back in our place.

[alexwcovington]

7. Yes

Because the US would only do such a thing if it developed a more advanced ass-whooping system.

And then everyone would follow suit!

[TexasMexican]

8. Anti-Matter Bombs.

lol

[Liberal Veteran]

11. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle....

No matter how much we might wish otherwise.