|
I think that they can't completely do away with weapons for the simple reason that they will always be made and can be bought in the black market. I think there should be a limit on everyone selling and making weapons of destruction.
|
macsucks |
09:39pm Mar 18, 2002 EST |
2 of 5 |
 |
|
Ok Ok here we go again another one of those phrases bush cant pronouce "weapons of mass destruction." There is a serious shit going on about that. U.S wants to free the middle east from any possible "outbreak" (as if it hasnt happened yet) by going around and clearing away all the places that have weapons of mass destruction. Thats a big argument for the new campaign against iraq. "lets go and get em b/c they have WOMD (weapons of mass destruction)." Bullshit. thats all talk, U.S says that while Israel, the only "democracy" in the ME and its strongest ally is the ONLY country in that region that has nuclear weapons, the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. So how does that work? You tell me.
PC
Whether there's a limit or not, how could a limit be enforced? Even with U. N. inspections, honestly, could a limit like that be enforced? During the Cold War, the U.S. and Russia, or should I say the U.S.S.R., were just building WOMD, as PC put it, just to prove who could be better. An arms race, building weapons that if deployed would lead to the end of the world (this is where we shudder to think what could've happened), and the only reason why the Cuban Missile Crisis ended the way it did was for fear of what could have happened if the red button was pushed. The decisions of nuclear weapons, for the most part, of the Cold War were made by a few countries. Now that these weapons are available anywhere, where do we begin to decide? Limitation of nuclear weapons, even if inspected, is more of an impossibility, and if a "law" to do away with them completely is put into effect...well, we saw what Germany did after the Treaty of Versailles. The decisions of the world is a heavy burden and impracticable to enforce after put into effect. So I'm sorry to bring you to this conclusion, but if you ask me, there is no real answer.
We could try and limit WOMD but as MagDee said how do we enforce it? And we could eliminate WOMD completley but there will always be those we build them seretly "just incase." and we can;t just say eliminate WOMD from the middle east that is sort of like being prejudiced. If you get rid of them you do it everywhere not just in the middle east. But we cannot go back in time and stop the creation of WOMD. We created them and now we are goingto try and turn around and get rid of them again.... Personally i think it would be nice to live in a world where the threat of WOMD is not a viable one but that will not happen for a long time to come .
|
Aliter81 |
07:43pm Mar 24, 2002 EST |
5 of 5 |
|
|
the whole ida of a limit on weapons of mass destruction is a nice idea, but it's about the same as saying "let's stop wolrd hunger." it won't work. there is no way to enforce anything, because countries will lie about it, or not agree to allow inspectors in (like iraq). in theory you could force your way in, but that wouldn't bea good idea because that would threat the soveignity of the country.
|
