Welcome to Gaia! ::

You say that they have no right to have no nuclear weapons as though you believe that we (I am a reluctant citizen of the United States) do have the right. Am I correct?

Regardless if that was your intention or not, that is the point that I'll argue, because I always need direction. How does anyone have the right to have nuclear weapons, bombs or otherwise? And what, may I ask you, is the purpose of a nuclear weapon? To kill people. And to doom the survivors to a fate that may be worse than death. Can you really believe that such a thing could ever be necessary?

Of course, I am obviously highly against the alleged Korean nuclear weapons program. I say alleged because the last time Bush thought someone had weapons of mass destruction, it turned out that they didn't. Oh, they launched a test missile? Was that missile nuclear? I didn't think so. You know, more than one sort of weapon launches in that fashion.

Nuclear weapons are unnecessarily cruel, a highly ineffective solution to any sort of problem, and due to the time that it would take a rocket to reach its target, would ensure mutual destruction, if both parties had said weapons. Yes, that's right. In the time it takes a nuke to reach its target, the target could have launched one at the attacker. Do we really need to kill millions of people? Hitler did. Look how history remembers him.

It is an interesting subject.

My thoughts:
No one should have nuclear weapons.
Part of the issue is that other countries want to use nuclear fission for energy, but there is the fear that this would allow them to more easily create nuclear weapons. I think there are better ways of making energy than nuclear fission, and I am completely against anything that makes that kind of waste.
I am, however, not against the possibilities of using nuclear fusion to make energy, though allowing this could be cause for even greater fear.
I do think that creation of weapons of mass destruction should be strongly monitored, and stopped if possible, in every country.
I believe that a suspicion is good enough cause for action (avoiding violent action whenever possible). Not acting on a suspicion could be the biggest and most costly mistake anyone could possibly make. I say that if you believe that Bush should not have ordered the invasion of Iraq, you must also believe that scary looking men who look suspiciously like they are hiding guns should not be stopped from wandering around your child's school. Acting on suspicion is the smart thing to do.
(Don't forget that there are a lot of other good reasons for invading Iraq, even if alone they were not enough to cause an invasion. People should also know that a lot of good stuff is going on in Iraq. A huge part of the Iraqi citizens are looking to the US as a savior from the lives they were living in fear. You don't see any of this in the media oddly, but those in the military see it first hand, and are for staying in Iraq. And yes...I do in fact know quite a few of those who are currently in Iraq.)



Also...In my opinion...saying that you are a 'reluctant citizen of the United States' is about as stupid as saying you are a reluctant citizen of Earth. Even if you disagree with some of the decisions our government is making, I believe that the US is the best place to live for many reasons. You should really go find out how and why our government works the way it does, then compare that to how and why the governments of other countries work the way they do.