[Newsbot]

Title: U.S. president envisions world free of nuclear weapons
Category: World
Posted By: Hyack
Date: 2009-04-05 15:21:02

[tritium]

I hope as President he can now afford a better quailty of weed, that cheap stuff has really gone to his head.

[Pseudonym]

Other appropriate headlines:
U.S. President envisions world free of capitalism
U.S. President envisions world free of Rush Limbaugh
U.S. President envisions world free of Republicans
U.S. President envisions world free of mean people
U.S. President envisions world of free teleprompters

[Chumley]

I think he meant a world with free nuclear weapons.

[Proculation]

Chumley Chumley:

I think he meant a world with free nuclear weapons.

That would be soooooo cool !!

'Gimme your cash or I nuke you !'

[Schnek]

Hey, you can always hope! Why be cynical of a president who's going to try and heal the deep wounds that the cold war left and bring a little balance and stability to a screwed up system? Obviously it's a pipe dream but having something POSITIVE to talk about when it comes to nuclear weapons isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[jason700]

I for one think he's on the right track. We'll see how it goes though.

[Pseudonym]

WHy not just ban weapons, period? Where do you draw the line between destructive capabilities that makes nuclear weapons immoral and conventional weapons less so?

[SigPig]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

WHy not just ban weapons, period? Where do you draw the line between destructive capabilities that makes nuclear weapons immoral and conventional weapons less so?

Because you aren't able to kill every living organism right down to bacteria with an assault rifle. And unfortunately for the time being it looks like we will need assault rifles for the foreseeable future.

[jason700]

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

WHy not just ban weapons, period? Where do you draw the line between destructive capabilities that makes nuclear weapons immoral and conventional weapons less so?

I think that's quite the line between the destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons and every other weapon in the world. Pretty easy to draw IMO.

[commanderkai]

jason700 jason700:

Pseudonym Pseudonym:

WHy not just ban weapons, period? Where do you draw the line between destructive capabilities that makes nuclear weapons immoral and conventional weapons less so?

I think that's quite the line between the destructive capabilities of nuclear weapons and every other weapon in the world. Pretty easy to draw IMO.

Honestly, nuclear weapons are basically really powerful bombs with interesting side effects (like how cluster bombs can create minefields). Now, no doubt those side effects suck, but sooner or later we'll be developing something better, like a meteor launcher, or something

[SigPig]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Honestly, nuclear weapons are basically really powerful bombs with interesting side effects (like how cluster bombs can create minefields). Now, no doubt those side effects suck, but sooner or later we'll be developing something better, like a meteor launcher, or something

But lets be honest. We aren't ever going to use nuclear weapons because we are too damn afraid of the consequences. Right or wrong we still use cluster bombs. Other conventional bombs, we can control where they hit and their effects. Nuclear bombs are very different and since we aren't going to use them, why not get rid of them so they don't end up in the hands of some nutcase who wants to make a briefcase dirty bomb?

As for us developing new and bigger weapons you are probably right, but does that mean we should still build and amass it? The same goes for nukes. Just because we can, doesn't necessarily mean we should.

[tritium]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Honestly, nuclear weapons are basically really powerful bombs with interesting side effects (like how cluster bombs can create minefields). Now, no doubt those side effects suck, but sooner or later we'll be developing something better, like a meteor launcher, or something

After decades of expensive, well-publicized failures, laser weapons may finally be on the horizon. Can scientists end the era of bombs and bullets?

[saturn_656]

So should we expect Obama to decommission all American nuclear weapons?

Yeah right...

[commanderkai]

SigPig SigPig:

But lets be honest. We aren't ever going to use nuclear weapons because we are too damn afraid of the consequences. Right or wrong we still use cluster bombs. Other conventional bombs, we can control where they hit and their effects. Nuclear bombs are very different and since we aren't going to use them, why not get rid of them so they don't end up in the hands of some nutcase who wants to make a briefcase dirty bomb?

As for us developing new and bigger weapons you are probably right, but does that mean we should still build and amass it? The same goes for nukes. Just because we can, doesn't necessarily mean we should.

But can we TRULY get rid of nuclear weapons? I don't think so, in the end, all it will do is create a black market, where rogue nations like North Korea will just build them for the highest bidder.

In all reality, nuclear weapons will always exist, until we find something better. Maybe we shouldn't build new and better weapons, but the simple rule of geopolitics is this. "If you don't build it, somebody else will". It's the reality we live in