Under what condition do you think it would be acceptable for the US to use WMD.?
343311
NO CONDITION.\n\nI happen to live in Latin America, and I have studied American history for years and I wouldnt like the U.S. creating another Hiroshima, or another Nagasaki. Truth is that the U.S. thinks retaliation is all about extermination.\n\nIt's ignorance really.\nThe Cold War and the arms race would not have happened if the idea of nuclear bombs had not been introduced. The truth is that people are getting way too plain crazy nowadays and talking about all-out nuclear war as if it were nothing; as if it wasnt human lives that you were talking about.\n\nThere are so many people dying every single day of poverty, AIDS, and hunger, to name some. We dont need people dying because of some WMD hitting some less developed country. \n\nViolence will never be the answer, in my opinion. It's not the answer to terrorism, it's not the answer to anything. It's an oversimplified response people like to throw out in the air because it seems easier.\n\nIf you start using WMD's, where will it all stop? Where? \n\nYou cant wash away blood with some more blood.
999127
God bless you too. I agree with you 100%. The problem is, it isnt going to happen. Then we would be as bad as them. Wholesale killing cant be the answer. We have to do it right, but I'll tell you what, the thought of a few B-52's tossing some tactical nukes  does make me smile.
1033278
The Liberals and Europeans are already denying it saying its no big deal. It is absolutely disgusting.\n\nBut it is great we found those WMDs.\n\nhttp://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=WMD&btnG=Search+News \n\nTons of news stories, for the poster that posted above me
287042
thats a logical Q, yes its true that the usa is using double standards when dealing with the nuclear issue,they allowed and helped israel to have it and the usa have a lot of it and in the same time they are fighting any other country who only think of having it even for peaceful use.\nby the way,the usa didnt have any choice or way to stop russia or china from having it because those are powerfull countries and this happened long time ago before the soviet union tumbled,so actually the usa couldnt do anything to stop that,and if they could they would.\nThe usa acts strong ONLY when they deal with smaller and less powerfull countries ,they cant impose there will on strong nation like russia or china,they only do with afganistan,iraq and all small countries that they r sure they cant fight back!!!!!!is this courage???is this democracy???\nif the usa want to be fair with all the world ,they should first destroy all the WMD they have and ask other nuclear countries to destroy there WMD, BEFORE they ask others not to have it.\nNow the point is,nuclear power is the only thing that stops the usa and there allies from trying to impose there will on other countries or think to fight it,thats why evrybody is trying to have it,not to use it against anybody,but to stop others from threatning them.\nso,its very simple,get rid of your WMD first,then ask others not to try to have it.\nthats my opinion from a logical point.
1049152
This is a very difficult question.  Yes, every country has the right to nukes, it is only fair.  However, that being said, every country having nukes is going to lead to an apocolyptic war, so it is in the interest of the entire world to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
354602
For the simple reason that there weren't any WMD there.\n\nNow how can you be sure:\n\n1. If they had any they would've been used when US was attacking Iraq.\n2. If they were not used for fear of retaliation, then they should've been found by now.\n\nThe probability of all the WMDs being scuttled for fear of UN inspectors finding them out is very real.
997147
Cosmo that is about the most ignorant answer I've seen here. Using our government logic gun control, WMD, etc. If you have it, you intend on using it. What they found were parts that may possibly be used for WMD. As stated by Perfect American Mutually assured detruction. If they had attacked us they would have most assuredly been desomated. The example would be going in and destroying a foreign government for WMD's that are never found ? So you say everyone must conform to western ideals, sounds like a very big dictatorship to me. To me there is no greater hypocracy. \n\nAs for Dead Kid, technically America is split up into regions now, maybe you're too old to have learned that. Even the way we recieve our news is split by these regions. \n \nPanacea, pathetic and evil. What I think is pathetic is using WMD as an excuse to enter and desomate a country for oil. You can claim all kinds of other excuses, but that is the reality. It is good that Saddam is finally out of there (seeing as how the US put him where he was, it was only right to take him back out). Religion, is that honestly what you think it is about for them ? No, I don't think so. Saddam was perfectly content living his life out where he was. Now if you go over to Afghanistan, perhaps you have a point. Although it is quite small, seeing as how we helped put Osama Bin Laden where he was and the CIA trained him and his personell. Then when the US was done helping destroy Afghanistan, our government said, so long it nice fighting with you and left them to clean up. Leaving them with sand, you'd be a little irritated too. \n \nCarol O well written, I fully agree\n\nlucky_j_2003 the question was asked about WMD, they never even found anything. So, knock off the BS and discuss it right.\n\nAs for Perfect American I agree with everything, but I don't believe them to be cowards accept thier President. Many of them died, other decided to fight smarter and not head on. Which of course is what we are seeing right now. War is war, you fight to win, not to be fair. Then there are those who didn't believe in what they were doing and just surrendered.
357209
Absolutely not going to happen.  We've signed treaties left and right saying we won't use nuclear force.  The US has absolutely bent the rules when it comes to foreign relations but they absolutely would not completely abandon them.  With that being said, I predict a high probability of them using force OTHER than nuclear force...
608717
Only for the most radical and extreme elements of the Islam nations. Most rational people in that part of the world know that only bad things happen when WMD's are "in play". Being the cynic that I am, I could foresee all kinds of social and political unrest between the extremists and contemporary citizens, that is IF they stand up to the extemists....we'll see, if not, Holy Sh*t (no pun intended).
691733
askwrites is an idiot.  In an ideal world that would work, but in an ideal world no one would make nuclear weapons to begin with. \n\nTrue the U.S. is the only country that used nuclear weapons, but do the research and the study. There were many lives saved on both sides by doing so.  An invasion of Japan would have cost millions of lives on both sides. Also, we did not know about the fall out from nuclear weapons was so bad. \n\nPersonally, I don't think any group should be able to build nuclear devices. That's one of the responsibilities of the U.N. I just wish that other countries would step up and do things about the injustices in the world other than the U.S.
279436
The United States has been reducing its nuclear arsenal since signing the Moscow Treaty of 2002.  This treaty was signed by Vladimir Putin (President of Russia), and the guy you don't seem to think is doing anything, George W. Bush.  Oh, and by the way, the treaty was written, in part, by the Bush administration, which I am guessing you won't like either.\n\nHere's the problem:  as long as other nationstates have nuclear weapons, how can we completely eliminate them?  If we don't have them, the rest of the world will stop looking to us as the global super-power we are.  We would also leave ourselves vulnerable to nuclear attack.\n\nThe US has been much maligned in it current efforts to help curtail terrorizism in Iraq, but where was all the dissention during WWII, or WWI or Korea?  That's right, everyone kept their mouths shut because they knew we were neccessary to help stop the spread of tyranny and murder.\n\nLet me ask you this:  if the US had engaged in WWII earlier, would lives have been saved?  You bet your butt they would have been.  This is what we are doing in the war on terrorism.  We are taking the fight to them before they can (again) take the fight to others.\n\nSlam the US and the President all you want but He and we are necessary, and if we don't do it, no one else will.  I guess this is the price you pay for trying to help.
1022890
It'd be an almost impossible task, maybe they could take over a small part-like Hawaii, or Alaska (again Herculean), well and the US has weapons of Mass Destruction and are not denying them, rather using that leverage to control the world.\n\nIn case of such an eventuality happening, that particular invading country is gonna have the whole world after it's as.s, and will have to run, that is assuming that the local Americans don't start using their arsenal of weapons that their gun laws permit them to own, the other country is gonna get their as.sholes pasted on the wall\n\nA note to end - I am not an American and I am not from that fairy Blair's country, and have always been critical of US  in most of my posts pertaining to them. The vulgar expressions (they are a part of most humans' bodies though) are meant not as an insult but to explain, to stress that under the present circumstances what you are asking is practically impossible.\nChill out!\nst
414768
Yes, eventually (maybe not 50 years, but sometime not so far off), the US will have claimed that no country will be able to be trusted with nuclear weapons, and the US will bomb and take over every country. 50 years after that, people will realize that the true irony was that, in all of history, the US was the only country to use nuclear weapons.
735437
I don't think America would like to be the ones to let the Genie out of the bottle again. See, we used the bomb to end WW2 and saved not only American Lives, but Japanese lives too. It was estimated that over a MILLION people would die if we invaded Japan.\n\nThe trouble with nukes is they are area wide weapons. It takes out everyone, good people, kids, bad people, and anything else in that area. America would much rather try to do things conventional if they could.\n\nI think that we need to send the message, world wide, that if a nuke goes off, or a dirty bomb in the US, what ever country support that group that committed that crime, will be visited by us. We will bring the million degrees of heat and they supply the sand and we will turn their country into a glass parking lot.\n\nWe cant let terrorist run our country, even with threats of attack. We have to stand strong, or bend over and kiss it good bye cause, they will come after us if we leave Iraq undone and incomplete.\n\nAre you listening Democrats???? Then who are you going to blame for that attack????
481813
Why should the US be the only ones to have nukes in the first place?  Our president wants to claim everyine else is out to use them, when the fact of the matter is that our country is the only one in the world to have actually used them in a war situation.  In my eyes, I see our world as one.  And if one country on the map is allowed to have nukes to defend themselves, then so should everyone else.  We are just another country.  Just another land mass on the map.  Yes, we have more than others, but we also are more arrogant.  I can vouch for that, since I can be pretty stuck up at times.
466325
Illegal according to whom?  It's well within the bounds of US law.  Do you mean international law?  If international law worked, there would be no Saddams or Irans to deal with.  But that's what Americans do best.  Dealing with the sh*t the rest of the world produces.
67954
There is a fine line between nuclear energy and nuclear WEAPONS.  Energy will benefit everyone greatly until a meltdown of course.  However researching nuclear energy and experimenting with it leads to some bad people having volitile materials which COULD BE used for a dirty bomb or full out nuclear weapon.  To answer the 2nd part of the question.. what do you THINK the US will do to stop them?  We will warn them once, ask the UN and get denied, then take matters into our own hands.  I vote move to Canada.