guardian.co.uk— Barack Obama yesterday announced a radical drive aimed at ridding the world of nuclear weapons, as the focus of his European visit switched from financial to geopolitical security.
Apr 4, 2009View in Crawl 4
The article says the US and Russia combined control 23,000 of the 24,000 nuclear devices in the world. How many do we really need? I think there's room for some reduction there.
Whipping up a conspiracy theory off-the-cuff like that makes YOU more naive than anyone else on this comment board... and considering this is Digg, that says a lot.
That is a very narrow-minded view of what having nukes is all about. Of all the countries that have nukes, only one has ever used them in anger: the US. The effect of exploding those two bombs have been enough to draw a hard line in the sand that most nations realise we can not cross.I'm not saying things will always be this way, and I would like to see numbers reduced, but the nuke has, for the past 60 or so years, been one of the best peace-keepers we've ever had.
And it was a catastrophic crime against humanity, since most of those 200 000 are civilians who were killed to show the emperor that all the rest of the Japanese would be wiped out in a similar way if he didn't surrender. That is a very evil act.
Not necessarily. Russia has been asking for money to pay for the dismantling of its weapons. In the meantime they are languishing somewhere that might not be totally secure.
jollydumpleApr 5, 2009
Yeah, looks more like a lobster or an octopus or something to me.Maybe a lobster eating an octopus.
Closed AccountApr 5, 2009
The article says the US and Russia combined control 23,000 of the 24,000 nuclear devices in the world. How many do we really need? I think there's room for some reduction there.
tgc1Apr 5, 2009
But after you get rid of nukes and guns... there will still be knives, sticks, clubs... rocks... hurting stuff.
dixtaApr 5, 2009
Whipping up a conspiracy theory off-the-cuff like that makes YOU more naive than anyone else on this comment board... and considering this is Digg, that says a lot.
ryanonfireApr 5, 2009
I thought it was some pokemon f**king
kestrelApr 5, 2009
That is a very narrow-minded view of what having nukes is all about. Of all the countries that have nukes, only one has ever used them in anger: the US. The effect of exploding those two bombs have been enough to draw a hard line in the sand that most nations realise we can not cross.I'm not saying things will always be this way, and I would like to see numbers reduced, but the nuke has, for the past 60 or so years, been one of the best peace-keepers we've ever had.
pandabearshenyuApr 6, 2009
And it was a catastrophic crime against humanity, since most of those 200 000 are civilians who were killed to show the emperor that all the rest of the Japanese would be wiped out in a similar way if he didn't surrender. That is a very evil act.
johnnysoftwareJul 20, 2009
Not necessarily. Russia has been asking for money to pay for the dismantling of its weapons. In the meantime they are languishing somewhere that might not be totally secure.