• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does USA have the right to have atomic bombs ?

Does USA have the right to have atomic bombs ?YY


  • Total voters
    52
Wtf!!!! The only country to have ever used them, and on a civilian target to boot, gets your vote of legitimacy, I never thought that would make me wish for a god. Jesus Christ, can such freaks really exist?

Oh ****, that figures.

You're probably malfunctioning, you've replied twice to the same post.
Head to your nearest Soviet center for reprogramming.
 
I voted other.

I don't believe any person or country has a 'right' to own nuclear weapons. All that matters is whether you have the ability to do so, and whether someone else has the inclination and ability to stop you. The US obviously has the ability, and no one has the ability and inclination to stop us
 
In the case of nukes, might makes right. The US has just as much right as France, Israel or Pakistan.
 
Of course we have a right to them. Any country has a right to them. The trouble comes when a country that is considered a menace to others is or has acquired them and that;s where negotiation comes into play in the way of sanctions or punishment is administered to pressure said country away from nuclear arms.

You hit the nail on the head. The shills for Iran love the argument about having a right because they know how empty it is, and a total distraction to the real point. And that is should a terrorist state like Iran be ALLOWED to obtain nuclear weapons whether by stealing them or creating them. They shouldn't be allowed to have them, period!
 
Wtf!!!! The only country to have ever used them, and on a civilian target to boot, gets your vote of legitimacy, I never thought that would make me wish for a god. Jesus Christ, can such freaks really exist?
God uses bigger WMDs than nukes.
 
No one has a right to have nuclear weapons, IMO.
 
inspired by X's thread.thanks for voting.

WWII lead to the atomic bombs and it was a race between the U.S. and Germany to which country would acquire them first. Moral or immoral I suppose that is for each individual to decide. Even if the U.S. had not the breakthrough in 1945, it was just a matter of time before another country developed them.

After WWII that country would have been the USSR with Stalin in charge. China soon followed. Would Stalin or Mao used their A bombs to achieve their political aims if the U.S. did not have nukes, you can be the judge.

The thing is when it comes to war, country after country continue to develop bigger and better weapons, without Nukes, it would be something else. Better and deadlier chemical and biological weapons, perhaps even smart disease bugs. Something else would have been developed to replace the nukes. That much is sure.
 
Last edited:
It is like someone smokes and tell others that it's dangerous for your health.
 
I don't really think anyone has the "right" to wipe out entire populations of people, or push their weight around with threats of same.

Furthermore, I find it utterly insane that some people think the only country that can be "trusted" with them is also the only country to ever use them (on civilians and for pretty much no reason, no less) and also a country that has nearly bombed its own people on numerous occasions through simple carelessness.

In point of historical fact, there is no country with a worse track record than the US. Of the current countries that have nukes, the US is to be trusted the least.
 
Since there were no legal constraints or pertinent treaties on atomic devices when the US developed such weapons, no law or treaty was infringed upon. It is estimated that 35-40 states could possess the technical acumen to develop nuclear weapons. The 190 (N Korea withdrew in 2003) signatory nations of the UN/NPT have the international "right" to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes with UN/IAEA oversight safeguards.
 
You hit the nail on the head. The shills for Iran love the argument about having a right because they know how empty it is, and a total distraction to the real point. And that is should a terrorist state like Iran be ALLOWED to obtain nuclear weapons whether by stealing them or creating them. They shouldn't be allowed to have them, period!

I couldn't agree with you more. ISIS is nothing compared to Iran with a nuke.
 
You're probably malfunctioning, you've replied twice to the same post.
Head to your nearest Soviet center for reprogramming.

Yes, and it deserves a third. Leave it to the promoter of the apocalypse to suggest that the only country to have ever dropped nuclear weapons on a civilian target is to be the most trusted with them! Fantastic.
 
I'm guessing the ayatollahs are brushing up the self same argument too.

Nah. The problem they have that we don't is that we have the ability, perhaps not the will, to stop them from getting them. No one has the ability to stop us. Your hero Kim that you added to my statement wouldn't have them either had we not had a weak dick-coward as President at the time. Oh, wait, we have a weak-dick muslim coward as "President" now, guess the ayatollahs will get their nukes also.
 
No one has a right to have nuclear weapons, IMO.

You don't understand what makes something a "right". Something only becomes a "right" when there is enough might to force it's acceptance and protect it. So the US definitely has the right. If we had any sense, we would have less in inventory, less problems with socialist and muslim countries and a smaller world population.
 
Nah. The problem they have that we don't is that we have the ability, perhaps not the will, to stop them from getting them. No one has the ability to stop us. Your hero Kim that you added to my statement wouldn't have them either had we not had a weak dick-coward as President at the time. Oh, wait, we have a weak-dick muslim coward as "President" now, guess the ayatollahs will get their nukes also.
Then it would appear that you DON'T have the ability to stop them. I'm intrigued to know how you think you would prevent them getting one even if you did have the will to do so. I think sanctions and boycotts really wouldn't be sufficient.
 
Back
Top Bottom