against. Until we meet.. them... * expects some nerd with too much time on hands to quote into sig. *

Only for me!

lol.. seriously I'm against them. I don't care what the reason for so and so having them or not, and I'm not going to judge any nation for it, but still. I think that all nations leaders need to for the sake of all humanity posses the presense of mind that they have a responsibilty to the world to settle matters without nuclear and bio chemical warfare. Obviously that is an ideal statement.

...and further more where as I believe the technology has been developed I personally don't believe Active nuclear warheads exsist.

Since they are in exsistance some coutries should and need them as deterents for agaisnt other countries. Countries that can over whelm smaller ones otherwise. But not to countries that are in a failing state or countries that might actually use them first without having sensed others incoming and be able to afford their protection and continual cost in making sure the nuclear forces are up to date.

For.  For sane countries anyways.

(they were great deterrents in that little thing called The Cold War)

What makes Biological and Chemical weapons "illegal" anyway?

I mean... they seem less effective then the general "blow you up" weapons... to me anyway.

Just the like... people dieing in horrible ways reasons?

Against. It does more bad than good.

For. It is a nessacity in the modern world. I seriously doubt that even countries like Germany, Australia, Ireland (just examples) don't have some form of nuclear weapon. If you don't have one and other people do you are at an imminent disadvantage.

For Nuclear bombs. It shows them who is the boss. If needed Nuke your enemy saves time, assuming that country has nothing worth salvaging.

The Nukes worked extremely well in showing the Japanese who were the boss was with the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings in WW 2.

nuclear weapons look poor in comparison to the Hammer of Dawn

I'm against any type of weapon unless it's pixelated.