sperrico87 said:
Slimebeast said:
sperrico87 said:
Slimebeast said:
Theocratic rogue states shouldn't have nukes. Any sane person should agree with that, unless you belong to either part of the clash of civilizations (Western freedom & secular democracy ideals versus Third world religious & apocalyptic ideals and/or communist worldwide revolution illusions).
|
Let me ask again: What gives us the right to determine who is and is not allowed to have nuclear weapons? Where do we get that authority from?
|
Kasz I think has repeatedly explained it in this thread already.
But simply put:
The background is historical: unfortunately some states were able to aquire nukes before there was any working controlling authority in place.
But now we have.
And the rule is simple (and it's not a USA invention): no state that already doesn't have nukes is allowed to aquire nukes. And it doesn't matter if it's Canada,Germany, Italy, Sweden, Brazil, Nigeria or Iran. It doesn't matter who you are or what your status as a nation is. No state is allowed to destabilize the world even more by becoming another nation with nukes.
|
So, basically what you're saying is: A lot of powerful nations with a nuclear arsenal are unwilling to accept that other nations want what they have. Obviously, nations with nukes wouldn't want any competition from other nations that are without them, especially if they weren't friendly westernized Christian nations. I understand what you're saying, that there is a ring of power, all of whom are unwilling to allow anyone else what they already have. I'm merely suggesting to you that it isn't right, no nation has the right to tell another nation what to do or what not to do, and that the world would be a much safer place if either no country had nuclear capability, or everyone did.
|
lol it would be disatser if every country would be allowed to have nukes. Just imagine if Khadaffi had access to nukes when he was driven out of Tripoli.
