|
corgan_tyler
Female,
18-29
Canada
Joined: 17 yrs ago
834 Posts
|
|
|
|
16 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Friday 4/25/03 - 11:11:06 AM EST (GMT-5)
no.
nuclear weapons should go away. all weapons should go away.
|
|
markkorean
Male,
18-29
Midwest US
Joined: 16 yrs, 10 mos ago
2,716 Posts
|
|
|
|
16 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Friday 4/25/03 - 11:51:49 AM EST (GMT-5)
That's a big contradiction. Then why does other countries have nuclear weapons and not trashing them away. (Don't get me wrong. I hope North Korea doesn't do anything stupid and go for peace.)
|
|
|
16 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Saturday 4/26/03 - 7:26:04 AM EST (GMT-5)
Nope, I don't think we should give anyone else nuclear weapons.
|
|
ecinue88
Female,
18-29
Eastern US
Joined: 16 yrs, 8 mos ago
1,540 Posts
|
|
|
|
16 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Monday 5/5/03 - 10:34:47 AM EST (GMT-5)
The point of intervention is to stop parts of the world from blowing up. Putting 2 countries into a Mexican standoff is counterproductive.
|
|
peachychick
Female,
13-17
Midwest US
Joined: 17 yrs, 4 mos ago
161 Posts
|
|
|
|
16 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Monday 5/5/03 - 1:47:45 PM EST (GMT-5)
The threat of nuclear war doesn't solve the issue. It didn't work with SAC (Strategic Air Command) following WWII. Conflicts still arose, just no total war.
|
|
Chaotic1
Male,
18-29
Midwest US
Joined: 16 yrs, 10 mos ago
232 Posts
|
|
|
|
16 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Monday 5/5/03 - 1:55:29 PM EST (GMT-5)
North and South Korea have been doing a Mexican standoff for 50 years, giving the South Koreans a bunch of nukes won't change anything. They will continue to stare each other down because neither side is going to cross the DMZ and start a war.
|
|
|
ecinue88
Female,
18-29
Eastern US
Joined: 16 yrs, 8 mos ago
1,540 Posts
|
|
|
|
16 yrs ago, 7 mos ago - Monday 5/5/03 - 4:11:30 PM EST (GMT-5)
Except that instead of one country with nukes, you have 2. Nuking South Korean troops has less consequence than nuking representative troops from 'bigger' countries.
|
|
Zoogy
Male,
18-29
Western US
Joined: 16 yrs, 7 mos ago
294 Posts
|
|
|
|
16 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Monday 6/2/03 - 1:25:05 PM EST (GMT-5)
I don't think that would be the best of ideas!
|
|
|
16 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Tuesday 6/3/03 - 6:46:02 AM EST (GMT-5)
ahh but it would actually make the region safer as then they would both have nuclear weapons. Therfore if one country used them the other would retaliate in kind, neither would want this, thus causing a safer stand off. Mutually assured destruction (MAD) is the same thing that kept the USA and USSR blowing the sh*t out of the world during the cold war.
|
|
|
16 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Tuesday 6/3/03 - 6:56:18 AM EST (GMT-5)
yes, but Mr. whatever his name is in North Korea wouldnt give a flip that his country would get blown to bits...
|
|
|
16 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Tuesday 6/3/03 - 7:01:10 AM EST (GMT-5)
That would be illegal under the terms of the non-proliferation treaty.
A major reason for the original UN resolutions against Saddam Hussein.
|
|
|
16 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Tuesday 6/3/03 - 7:19:49 AM EST (GMT-5)
Well, no I don't think so.
What we should do is cut of the OPIUM production the N.Korean government is making almost a billion a year on and force them to disarm, but screw it, if China doesn't care why should we. Let's pull our troops out of the region, period!
|
|
|
16 yrs ago, 6 mos ago - Tuesday 6/3/03 - 7:31:37 AM EST (GMT-5)
yeh of course it would be wrong to do that, but it would make the region safer, i don't think even kim whatever would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons if he knew they would be coming straight back.
|
|
|
16 yrs ago - Wednesday 12/3/03 - 4:17:20 PM EST (GMT-5)
kieren, it's Kim Jong-il.
|
Share 
