Reply With QuoteNo, they don't. They're too unstable and, if you're ever to have total disarmament, you have to force those who don't have the weapon to quit seeking it.
As they have a right to do so...no?
Not that I want any more freakin' nukes on this planet.
No, they don't. They're too unstable and, if you're ever to have total disarmament, you have to force those who don't have the weapon to quit seeking it.
In order to have total disarmament..wouldn't the countries who currently have nukes need to get rid of them?
Well, that would be kind of stupid in light of people like the Ayatollah building them, now wouldn't it?
I'm certainly in favor of complete and total disarmament. But, not until we have two conditions.
1) No one that doesn't have them now be allowed to get them in the future; and
2) Everyone that has them now agree to a plan whereby disarmament can be satisfactorily verified to the other nations that will also be disarming.
And, in that order.
Makes sense to me...that is why it probably won't happen.
No way we give up our nukes.
We will when we invent something better..which we are probably just about to do.
Problem is, they can nuke us back. You get points for consistency though. Lil' Kim has stopped all the other boardhawks in their tracks.I'm tellin' ya, we need to nuke'em.
You turn up the pressure on them. The assumption that a 'hawk' position on NKorea is to nuke them is dumb.
What would you call a "nuke them" position then?
Dove-ish?
It's not a representative hawk position on North Korea. Sure, you can find a few loons who advocate doing that. BFD.
Says you.It's not a representative hawk position on North Korea.
You speak for all hawks?
I still say nuke 'em. China will only until they realize we've pulled a thorn out of their side.
Irrelevant. It is not a mainstream hawk view. Try again.
Could you link me to mainstreamnorthkoreaforeignpolicyhawkview.com?
You obviously have a modem.
Irrelevant.
Show me the mainstream hawk view.
I'm not going to do your work for you. You made the claim that the 'hawks' in this forum had backed off from a preemptive nuclear strike on North Korea with the implicit assumption that such a postion was what one would expect from a 'hawk.' Now provide the evidence.
Read your own sentence.I won't read it for you.the 'hawks' in this forum
um no. You clearly understood the label 'hawk' to apply to American foreign policy views outside of this forum as indicated by your preceding comments.
RIF.Lil' Kim has stopped all the other boardhawks in their tracks.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions