Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee
Really there is only one argument standing in the face of the U.S. hypocracy of "we can have em and you can't" and I think your argument is a weak one. This is because if we are basing the possession of these things on length of time, when does Iran get its start to prove to the world it can have them in a responsible manner? Hell if the world let them, they'd already be a few years into the mix!
But the real question is what's the point? What are your motives? Why must you have them? And to that the States- and really every country- should ask themselves that. You know, just because you have the capability to create this technology that can eliminate mass populations in the blink of an eye, doesn't necessarily mean you have to make them. Military might can take other forms. Just ask the Taliban as they run from mountain to mountain and cave to cave, dressing as civilians.
The easy answer to the Iranian president, however, is something that little Anderson Cooper couldn't say. Why can't you have them? Well... you did say you wanted the eradication of an entire race... sooooo..........
|
It's not as simple as just giving up your nuclear weapons. Yes, there is only one perpose for having nuclear weapons and that is for destruction. But as long as someone else has nuclear weapons the US cannot give up theres or they could ultimately be blackmaled into anything by another country with nuclear weapons.
Now, the reason the US and England have nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't and shouldn't is the same reason police are allowed to carry firearms and criminals aren't.