Simple poll: Are you in favor of ALL countries having nuclear weapons?

[The Straight Story]

Poll question: Simple poll: Are you in favor of ALL countries having nuclear weapons?

They already exist, so wishing no one had them ain't gonna work.

Do you feel more safe with less countries having them or more? And how would you propose to stop others from getting them if you don't think they should have them.

If you think they should have them, is there any reason why they should not be made in the USA and sold to others? We could use the money...

[illinoisprogressive]

1. Personally, I wish we didn't have them. Because

if we, the first one to have them, didn't, then maybe they still wouldn't exist.

[rebel with a cause]

3. sure, nuke them all

Oh wait a minute. That's what my dad use to say when he got mad at other countries and forgot he was suppose to be a christian. :sarcasm:

I don't want anyone to have them, but if we have them, I don't think we have the right to tell someone else they can't. I believe in the old saying "Lead by example".

(edited to add - this should have been a reply to original message)

[NMMNG]

5. Yep

"Nuke the hell out of them" is what my Christian friend says of nations like Iraq, then she turns around and says "atheist f*cks" like myself are immoral. The irony is astounding.

[rebel with a cause]

10. The funny thing is that my father

was anti-military and anti-war (except for WWII) for the most part, but he would get his dander up and say things like this. While my mother was alive he was prejudice but not racist. After she died and he remarried, I heard things come out of his mouth that shocked me. Of course, my mother was dark and had a sensitivity to all racial epithets. I did not like his second wife, she was a real piece of work. (and that is an insult)

By the way, I married a man from the Caribbean and everyone asked me if my father got upset over it. I told them only because my husband was catholic and although my father, a baptist minister, always had catholic friends; he considered them.....well, he didn't want his daughters marrying one. Oh the stories I could tell about my father and growing up in the church. B-)

[Dorian Gray]

12. Why are you friends with him/her?

I don't get that.

[sanskritwarrior]

15. I have friends

that still love Bush, I have friends that think Global warming is a scam.......I'm not going to disown them because we believe in different things.......

[Dorian Gray]

29. Neither would I...

but if someone told me that I was evil and going to hell... that's another matter. Friends are friends. Those who condemn you are not friends.

[NMMNG]

20. As soon as I find a new living arrangement,

I'll no longer be.

[rebel with a cause]

14. Yeah, what # 12 said.

I have a friend who has/had a friend like that. I think she kept holding on to him because he was so cuuute and she hooooped she could get together with him. (I never met the guy, so that was from what she had told me) I told her that she was a fool, that he didn't respect her and that she should cut the ties. She said she was going to, but I don't know if she did or not.

[PFunk]

2. Yes.

Only because if you either allow every country to have them. Or no country to have them.

And I prefer no country should have then (even us, the US).

[Robbien]

4. I wish all countries would have them so we would have to think

twice before we invade and drop bombs on them.

Ha. I love that "we could use the money" bit.

[Crunchy Frog]

6. Heck, I take the 2nd Ammendment literally.

I think I ought to be able to have tactical nukes in my back yard. That would make Uncle Sam think twice about messin' with me. :nuke: :P

[struggle4progress]

7. In the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, countries with nukes promised to get rid of theirs so

there have been times when the dream of a non-nuclear world seemed feasible. Of course, "wishing no one had them ain't gonna work," but its entirely plausible that dedicated diplomatic efforts could eliminate the damned devices. Several countries that had them, or programs to develop them, have backed away ...

[mmonk]

8. I'm for non-proliferation but that has a snowball's chance

in hell, especially now that we are an international bully instead of a powerful country trying to set a good example and working to reduce nukes.

[BeHereNow]

9. The US has made it imperative for all countries to be armed.

This is not a good thing mind you, but the US has,
over time, made it clear to all other peoples of the world
that without a nuclear defense, they are subject
to imperial occupation and subjugation.

So really, what choice does the rest of the planet
have to ward off the US/World Bank/ Corporate
military machine?

The world has learned that if they have something
that may benefit 1% of the world's population, the global elite
that is to say, without a deterrent of formidable military
might, they will be destroyed.

So once again, I ask you, what choice do they have but to arm themselves?

BHN

[Dorian Gray]

11. Absolutely not...

I'd prefer that no countries have them, but since we already do, I prefer that those that have them work on getting rid of their huge stockpiles while preventing new countries from building a Nuclear program.

[sanskritwarrior]

13. No

as irresponsible as the US has acted there are other countries that scare me a whole hell of a lot more.

[johnaries]

16. We should follow Randy Newman's advice....

Political Science Lyrics
Artist: Randy Newman
Album: Sail Away

No one likes us
I don't know why.
We may not be perfect
But heaven knows we try.
But all around even our old friends put us down.
Let's drop the big one and see what happens.

We give them money
But are they grateful?
No they're spiteful
And they're hateful.
They don't respect us so let's surprise them;
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them.

Now Asia's crowded
And Europe's too old.
Africa's far too hot,
And Canada's too cold.
And South America stole our name.
Let's drop the big one; there'll be no one left to blame us.

Bridge:
We'll save Australia;
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo.
We'll build an all-American amusement park there;
They've got surfing, too.

Well, boom goes London,
And boom Paris.
More room for you
And more room for me.
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town.

Oh, how peaceful it'll be;
We'll set everybody free;
You'll have Japanese kimonos, baby,
There'll be Italian shoes for me.
They all hate us anyhow,
So let's drop the big one now.
Let's drop the big one now.

[raysr]

17. That's the only way they can

be protected from US.

[WiseButAngrySara]

18. What's the point of having weapons if they're all distributed

equally! It makes no sense to have nuclear weapons at all. I feel more safe if NO COUNTRY had weapons. You need more options in your voting choices....

[EndElectoral]

19. I don't beleve any countries should have nuclear weapons

[John Q. Citizen]

21. Some interesting academic papers on 4th generation nulear weapons (fusion)

This ones called
4th Generation Nuclear Weapons
Military Effectiveness and Collateral Damage

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0510/0510071.pdf

Andre Gsponer
Independent Scientific Research Institute
Box 30, CH1211
Geneva12,
Switzerland
Version ISRI0503.17
May 23, 2006
Abstract
The paper begins with a general introduction and update to Fourth Generation
Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), and then addresses some particularly
important military aspects on which there has been only limited public
discussion so far. These aspects concern the unique military characteristics
of FGNWs which make them radically different from both nuclear
weapons based on previousgeneration
nuclearexplosives
and from conventional
weapons based on chemicalexplosives:
yields in the 1 to 100 tons
range, greatly enhanced coupling to targets, possibility to drive powerful
shapedcharge
jets and forged fragments, enhanced prompt radiation effects,
reduced collateral damage and residual radioactivity, etc.


This ones called

The Question of Pure Fusion
Explosions Under the CTBT (Comprehensive test Ban Treaty)

http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/pdf/7_2Jones.pdf#search=%22Fusion%20Research%20Prompts%20Fears%20Of%20Future%20Bombs%22

Suzanne L. Joneso and Frank N. von Hippelb
Fusion research involving implosions of deuterium-tritium targets driven by laser or
particle beams appears to be widely accepted as not prohibited under the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Research on fusion involving implosions driven by other
means is underway in civilian and military laboratories in the US and other countries
and could result in small (up to perhaps a few tons TNT equivalent) explosive fusion
energy releases. However, the status of such experiments under the CTBT has not
been clearly defined. Until the potential for this research to lead to the development of
pure fusion weapons has been openly reviewed and an appropriate policy governing its
conduct is established in the context of the CTBT, such experiments should be subject
to two interim limits: (1) a maximum of -1014 neutrons produced; and (2) a ban on the
use of tritium.

[Placebo]

22. Certain countries simply aren't stable enough...

to ensure their nuclear weapons couldn't easily fall into the wrong hands. Also, some countries simply don't need them because they are of such minimal global importance. I mean, does Fiji need nukes? Exactly.

[helderheid]

23. The US comes to mind...

[Spazito]

24. Either all should have them or none should have them....

and given that those who already have them are not going to give them up then all should have them which would then make them an ineffective tool in the threat/attack arsenal.

I find it absolutely hypocritical for the US, Israel, China, etc, to be threatening countries that are working toward attaining nuclear capability while keeping and even strengthening theirs.

Mutually Assured Destruction would, again, be the impetus for negotiation as opposed to "preemptive" or "preventative" attacks using nuclear weapons if all countries had them, imo.

Edited to add correct punctuation.

[porphyrian]

25. No, I think all nuclear weapons should be disarmed and safely destroyed.

Their pre-existence isn't a permanent state.

[Beelzebud]

26. The world needs LESS nukes, not more...

[IDemo]

27. The question reminds me of an "All in the Family" episode

Archie Bunker tells "Meathead" (son in law): "I could solve the airline hijacking problem right now. Give every passenger on the jet a gun." Meathead's response: "Incredible!" (shaking head in disbelief)...

[TahitiNut]

28. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

[Eric J in MN]

30. the more nukes are around, the easier for one to be stolen (NT)

NT