The U.S. should destroy their nukes.

[CyberFaust]

Before this ignorant post here you were making good points, no country should have the power to destroy an entire planet.

in-deeed

 

[Kritish]

No body has responed to my post, we need to be nuclear pacifist.

The only thing that would happen if we shot off a nuke would be to **** up the planet. In nuclear warfare nobody wins.

 

[Memphis Slim]

I see......
eliminate our nukes after we've spent the last year being threatened by North Korea and Iran.

That makes sense..... LOL t:

 

[raybia]

The only thing that would happen if we shot off a nuke would be to **** up the planet. In nuclear warfare nobody wins.

True. Which is probably why we haven't had a nuclear war to date.

 

[souloffire]

No body has responed to my post, we need to be nuclear pacifist.

The only thing that would happen if we shot off a nuke would be to **** up the planet. In nuclear warfare nobody wins.

If you're so concerned about ****ing up the planet then you're thread should have been about Iran and N. Korea abandoning their nuclear ambitions.

 

[Spider-Bite]

I think we should vow to dismantle out nukes, but we make no effort to do it quickly. It can be a really slow process taking like 50 or 60 years to finally finish it. It would give us leverage in our speeches at the U.N., and if all hell breaks loose we still got em anyways to use, or we can always abadnon the dismantlement.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

I see......
eliminate our nukes after we've spent the last year being threatened by North Korea and Iran.

That makes sense..... LOL t:

yeah, it's not like the U.S. did anything threatening itself.
LOL.
everyone knows that superior firepower=moral right.
DUH!
you people and your useless quests for peace and understanding!
peace is gained with napalm and tanks, not with the stupidity of disarming the worlds finest fighting machine.

HURRAH!

 

[CyberFaust]

I see......
eliminate our nukes after we've spent the last year being threatened by North Korea and Iran.

That makes sense..... LOL t:

who threatened who?

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think it's better for the whole world to be a third world country.

1. No more global warming
2. No more internet, computer games
3. Healthy lifestyle diet
4. Less obesity, cancer, and heart attacks
5. No more diabetes
6. Increase in exercise and well-being
7. No more pollutants in the air & sea
8. A more humane treatment of others
9. More Education. More reading.
10. Less illterate f**ks.

All of those problems would still exist, if not become worse, if every country became a third world country.

 

[lordofthenerds]

deterrent fow what? attack, america has rednecks (probably with their own stockpile of nuclear bombs) isn't that enough

Deterrent 'fow' rulers of other countries that, like you, hate our redneck arses.

 

[CyberFaust]

hihi, must learn to check before posting

a redneck is not defined my grammar, athough it does have its role in their lifes, i think someone should do a documentary abut rednecks

 

[Darthphere]

Nukes are a blight to the planet, they aren't viable weapons of war.
They only destory the planet, and its radiation spreads and contaminates the soil.

Meh.

 

[Memphis Slim]

who threatened who?

My my...what short memories we have.....

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1699643

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ww3/nk_threatens_us_with_war.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/04/korea.missile/

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/05/korea.missile/index.html


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202060,00.html

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2552952

 

[Darthphere]

And yeah, and whos the only country to actually use one? Oh wait...

 

[raybia]

who threatened who?

Its best not to take his comments seriously.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

LOL Celldog fails at reading

 

[CyberFaust]

i meant it, it looks mighty different from just about anywhere else in the world
the only threats came from the US the rest were indirect and/or caused by threats because a new nuclear power has risen and people were scared

anyhow, this is not a topic about world politics

 

[Darthphere]

LOL Celldog fails at reading

Its funny how he keeps denying hes celldog.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Actually, the number of nuclear nations has declined, France and the U.K. don't have nukes.

Wrong. The United Kingdom became a nuclear power in 1952 when it exploded it's first atomic weapon and in 1957, the first British hydrogen bomb exploded.

France became a nuclear power in 1960 and developed the hydrogen bomb in 1968. Chriac has stated that if a nation would use nuclear weapons in retaliation in the event of a terrorist attack on France
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4627862.stm

Both the United Kingdom and France are recognized as two of the five major nuclear powers along with the United States, Russia, and China.

Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Belarus don't count as nuclear powers because the nuclear weapons in their countries were Russian and were transfered to Russia in 1995.

The only nation to have given up their nuclear weapons is South Africa. The number continues to increase with the recent inclusions of Pakistan and North Korea. Don't be surprised when Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others obtain them also.

 

[Memphis Slim]

I think it's more strange that you keep bringing some celldog fellow up than answer my post. Why should the U.S. give up nukes when it's been our very strength that has kept the peace for most of the last century?
Do you deny the freedoms you have are a result of U.S. protection against a nuclear USSR taking over Europe and then the U.S. if we didn't have nukes? What would have stopped them? Please tell me.

 

[Darthphere]

I think it's more strange that you keep bringing some celldog fellow up than answer my post. Why should the U.S. give up nukes when it's been our very strength that has kept the peace for most of the last century?
Do you deny the freedoms you have are a result of U.S. protection against a nuclear USSR taking over Europe and then the U.S. if we didn't have nukes? What would have stopped them? Please tell me.

LOL! Dude, you couldn't make it any more obvious.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

I think it's more strange that you keep bringing some celldog fellow up than answer my post. Why should the U.S. give up nukes when it's been our very strength that has kept the peace for most of the last century?
Do you deny the freedoms you have are a result of U.S. protection against a nuclear USSR taking over Europe and then the U.S. if we didn't have nukes? What would have stopped them? Please tell me.

ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME??????!!!!!

 

[Darth Elektra]

I believe we could destroy a good many of them but we should keep a few around.

 

[raybia]

edit

 

[raybia]

I think it's more strange that you keep bringing some celldog fellow up than answer my post. Why should the U.S. give up nukes when it's been our very strength that has kept the peace for most of the last century?
Do you deny the freedoms you have are a result of U.S. protection against a nuclear USSR taking over Europe and then the U.S. if we didn't have nukes? What would have stopped them? Please tell me.

LOL! Stop it dude, you're killing me!!