Proof that the USA needs to be disarmed.

There has been a lot of talk recently about Iran and their nuclear energy program and there have been many discussions about how the US should go to any length to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons as they can not be trusted with them.

I believe the United States can no longer be trusted with the level of power it currently has and should no longer be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

There have been many comments on this forum about using nukes on countries like Syria, Iraq, Iran and other Muslim countries and while it angered me I assumed it was just a small number of extremists that felt that way.

A recent poll shows it is not a small number of extremists but rather an astonishing 27% of American adults who feel that nuclear weapons should be used in the war against terrorism.

editorandpublisher

Gallup asked Americans whether they would be willing or not willing “to have the U.S. government do each of the following” and then listed an array of options.

For example, “assassinate known terrorists” drew the support of 65% of all adults. “Torture known terrorists if they know details about future terrorist attacks in the U.S.” won the backing of 39%.

Finally, the option of using “nuclear weapons to attack terrorist facilities” drew the support of 27% of adults, with 72% opposing, which would shatter the taboo on using these weapons militarily since the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Experts agree that the power of today’s weapons, their range of damage and the peril of drifting radioactive fallout far exceeds the bombs used against Japan. That support has declined 7% since 2001, however.

The United States and other nuclear nations need to dismantle all nuclear weapons and make the entire world nuke free. Perhaps if Russia moves some nuclear weapons back into Cuba the US would understand what it's like to live under a nuclear shadow.

[edit on 3-3-2005 by AceOfBase]

Yeah you and what army? Ha ha ha

Seriously the United States seems to be the only strong remaining voice of sanity and moral clarity left in Western civilization. Others exist, but they are drowned out by the reactionary voices of France and Germany.

If it can't be done militarily then tariffs should be placed against any nation that owns nuclear weapons or refuses to sign the NPT.

The level of tariffs could vary according to how many nuclear weapons are in that country.

[edit on 3-3-2005 by AceOfBase]

If you want to punish nuclear powers why do you single out the U.S.? Attack the U.K., France, Russia, China, etc. with equal fervor sheesh...plus we don't trust anyone to trust or not with nuclear weapons. We have them, we want them, and we will use them to defend our freedom, way of life, etc. like it or not!

Anyway the U.S. is the original nuclear power and not bound by the NPT or any other treaty banning nuclear weapons.

They should also be subject to tariffs.
The reason I did not attack them is because I have not seen any posts from members of those nation calling for the use o nukes but there have been many posts from US members calling for country x ,y or z to be nuked.

The poll was also about the US.
If you find a poll that shows more than 1 out of every 4 people in those other countries think nuclear weapons should be used I'll attack them.

Regarding the US staus as a signatory to the NPT, I'm suggesting that all nations who do not sign the NPT should be subject to tariffs. It will serve as an incentive to sign on to the NPT.

[edit on 3-3-2005 by AceOfBase]

Here's the definition of proliferation as it applies to the NPT:

Proliferation (of WMD): The spread of WMD. Horizontal proliferation refers to the spread of WMD to states that have not previously possessed them. Vertical proliferation refers to an increase in the amount or devastating capacity of any currently existing WMD arsenals within a state.

Source: NTI

Since the United States invented the atomic bomb and we are currently reducing the number of our strategic nuclear weapons, proliferation obviously doesn't apply to us.

Look if you as a nation decide the USA is bad for possesing nukes, go ahead and tarrif us IF YOU CAN!
The economic reality is that if you want to cut your nation off from trading with the country that IS 1/3 of the entire global economy, someone else will fill your shoes. Can your country even afford to lose that level of trade?

a nuke, while messy, is just another way we already kill our enemies...im not suprised that 25% of Americans say use a tool already in the tool box and one that costs alot to have.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Since the United States invented the atomic bomb and we are currently reducing the number of our strategic nuclear weapons, proliferation obviously doesn't apply to us.

OK then, for the US and other nations who already have them, it should apply to possession of nuclear weapons. For other countires it should apply to anyone who doesn't sign the NPT or withdraws from the NPT.

AceOfBase, once you convince China and Russia to destroy all of their nuclear weapons, then we'll think about it.

[edit on 3/3/2005 by djohnsto77]

[edit on 3/3/2005 by djohnsto77]

If you REALLY want my countries nukes,
either
pry them out of our cold dead hands,
or
BUY THEM!

Thats right...ill sell out some security for a pile of $$$

Lets set up an account for all US citizens, we will take fair market value for a nuke (and its delivery system) and put it into the account, then destroy that weapon publiclly. All the $$ should be divided evenly by the citizens, not the government.

So now if you REALLY want the USA to give up our nukes, make us an offer.

Originally posted by CazMedia
Look if you as a nation decide the USA is bad for possesing nukes, go ahead and tarrif us IF YOU CAN!
The economic reality is that if you want to cut your nation off from trading with the country that IS 1/3 of the entire global economy, someone else will fill your shoes. Can your country even afford to lose that level of trade?

I'm not saying they should use economic sanctions like cutting off all trade.
Just a tariff of 20% - 30% or maybe more. That would only slow down other nations trade if the US decided to impose retaliatory tariffs.

America will never disarm its nuclear arsenal. Even if every other nation on earth publicly destroyed thier entire nuclear arsenal we would keep ours. Why, because we wouldn't be able to be sure all nations had really destroyed all of thiers, and even if they had nothing but a treaty would stop them from making more, we were the frst and we wll be the last. Live with it.

Since the U.S. has a current account trade deficit, trade blocks would probably help the internal U.S. economy so try again Ace!

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Since the U.S. has a current account trade deficit, trade blocks would probably help the internal U.S. economy so try again Ace!

I don't think you understand how tariffs work.
They would placed against US exports which would increase the trade deficit unless there are retaliatory tariffs against other nations exports.

OK, so the price of Microsoft Windows and Office goes up by 1000% in your country and we buy California wine instead of French wine...who really gets hurt by this I ask you???

I agree the US should disarm, we should launch everthing we have right now at the rest of the planet................

Originally posted by AceOfBase

I'm not saying they should use economic sanctions like cutting off all trade.
Just a tariff of 20% - 30% or maybe more. That would only slow down other nations trade if the US decided to impose retaliatory tariffs.

if our interests were put at risk, we would do more than retaliatory tarrifs, we would do blockades, cut trade routes, anything to strangle the new enemy then invade if its neccisary to end the problem

Originally posted by DrHoracid
I agree the US should disarm, we should launch everthing we have right now at the rest of the planet................

aww come on horacid leave little old australia alone! seriously though launch everything you have atm and prepare to die a fiery death along with the rest of us

I got myself a new signature now, thanks!

[edit on 3-3-2005 by drfunk]

Originally posted by namehere
if our interests were put at risk, we would do more than retaliatory tarrifs, we would do blockades, cut trade routes, anything to strangle the new enemy then invade if its neccisary to end the problem

I'm giving this to namehere because he said something I've been meaning to say for a long time:

You have voted namehere for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

The weak policy of trade carrots not backed up by any might the Europeans push is meaningless since miltary powers could block their trade at any time with a navy fleet. Certainly the United States would not hesitate to do this with Iran or any other country if necessary.

[edit on 3/3/2005 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by djohnsto77
OK, so the price of Microsoft Windows and Office goes up by 1000% in your country and we buy California wine instead of French wine...who really gets hurt by this I ask you???

Who cares if the cost of Windows and Office gos up 1000% when you have ready alternatives like Linux and Openoffice?