Nuclear Free World Conspiracy

[Mithie]

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/eu...117841403.html

Barack Obama has promised that the US will do all it takes to achieve a world without nuclear weapons.

I can't believe this. Our world's vast nuclear arsenal is the only thing keeping WWIII in check and repulse the inevitable reptilian invasion from Alpha Centauri and this man wants to get rid of it?

Aside from the fact that it's totally impractical, our vast nuclear arsenal is... well... sizable, and getting rid of it all is like killing every last termite in my wine cellar - not gonna happen. If he actually goes through with this, I hope a stray asteroid slams into Earth during his presidency and kills us all, because we didn't have the nukes to give to Bruce Willis to blow it up, just to spite Obama.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

Obama is a moon-bat moron. Expecting or even wanting all nuclear weapons destroyed is somewhat less sensible than auto-erotic asphyxiation.

[The Count(er)]

Obama is a moon-bat moron. Expecting or even wanting all nuclear weapons destroyed is somewhat less sensible than auto-erotic asphyxiation.

Why is wanting all nuclear weapons destroyed unsensible?

[Ummon]

Why is wanting all nuclear weapons destroyed unsensible?

Why is wanting to conjure a billion tons of gold with a magic spell unsensible?

[Vercingetorix_Defeated]

Hahaha, you people actually take believe that he's going to try and get rid of the entire arsenal?

That's all public relations BS, the most they will ever do is limit the number of weapons, and they do that mainly to save themselves money on these things anyway.

And really, find a source more reliable than al-jazeera's website. You might as well link us to a wikipedia article you've written yourself, it would be about as trustworthy as al jazeera.

[The Count(er)]

Why is wanting to conjure a billion tons of gold with a magic spell unsensible?

certainly not for the same reason as wanting nukes destroyed, I don't quite understand your point.

[Ummon]

certainly not for the same reason as wanting nukes destroyed, I don't quite understand your point.

Hint: both are impossible.

[Holger Danske]

Obama is a moon-bat moron. Expecting or even wanting all nuclear weapons destroyed is somewhat less sensible than auto-erotic asphyxiation.

Which is why he is a realist and just want to reduce it to a much smaller, but nonetheless very destructive arsenal.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

Mutually assured destruction has keep billions of people living free from the realistic possibility of all out war.

[The Count(er)]

Mutually assured destruction has keep billions of people living free from the realistic possibility of all out war.

and that's a good way to be, where if that fails, we could suddenly all be killed?

[Desperado †]

Mutually assured destruction has keep billions of people living free from the realistic possibility of all out war.

The number of countries with nuclear weapons is growing. If we continue it wont be long before one buffoon uses them, and then millions will die as a consequence. We're fortunate to have gotten this far.

I also find our avatar images in this situation very ironic when we look at the stance each of us is taking.

[The Count(er)]

I also find our avatar images in this situation very ironic when we look at the stance each of us is taking.

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

[Desperado †]

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

Do you happen to be a pacifist?

[The Count(er)]

Do you happen to be a pacifist?

nope.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

A nation that is willing to use nuclear weapons against another nuclear power would assuredly have been willing to go war much earlier and mor frequently if nuclear weapons did not exist to be used against it.


After Obama said this I can not long be certain of his sanity.

[The Count(er)]

A nation that is willing to use nuclear weapons against another nuclear power would assuredly have been willing to go war much earlier and mor frequently if nuclear weapons did not exist to be used against it.

So since there hasn't been a WWIII that means no one is willing to use nuclear weapons? Isn't the only reason the this MAD(mutually assured destruction) idea works is because there is a risk that someone will actually do it? I still think that a WWIII is essentially garunteed to have better consiquences than nuclear weapons wiping out life as we know it.

[Homeros]

What's the point in spending billions on weapons no one wants to use anyway. All nations who have nukes claim its for 'protection', to scare 'the other one'

If you don't use them - get rid of them ; If you do use them - bye, bye planet earth

[Tankbuster]

A nation that is willing to use nuclear weapons against another nuclear power would assuredly have been willing to go war much earlier and mor frequently if nuclear weapons did not exist to be used against it.


After Obama said this I can not long be certain of his sanity.

You know what would have happened if Hitler had had nuclear weapons in the last months of WO II?

[The Devil's Sergeant]

You know what would have happened if Hitler had had nuclear weapons in the last months of WO II?

He ould have used them no doubt, which is exactly my point.

[Tankbuster]

He ould have used them no doubt, which is exactly my point.

And yet the idea that nuclear weapons might not be the number 1 way to prevent the world from ending, doesn't strike you at all.
Nuclear weapons have only been around for something like six decades, and in the Cold War alone, the world has stood on the verge of thermonuclear annihilation at least twice that we know off. Do you seriously think that this is a good gamble?