Social Question

Captain_Fantasy's avatar

Is there any way that Obama and Medvedev agreeing to reduce and limit their stockpiles of nuclear weapons could be considered a bad thing?

Asked by Captain_Fantasy (11447points) March 26th, 2010

I see no reason that reducing the amount of nuclear warheads in the world could ever be a bad thing but politics often brings up interesting points of view.

Also, hooray for reducing the number of weapons on the planet that could kill us all.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

14 Answers

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

Oh sure – why, people can say it’s only setting us up for being attacked by the A-rabs~

lilikoi's avatar

Only if Third Party comes along with a bigger stockpile than the two reduced stockpiles, and uses them…lol.

ragingloli's avatar

There are those who think that nukes are the only reason why there has not been a WW3 yet.

janbb's avatar

Thre is always a way that crazies can think something is a bad thing. That doesn’t mean it is!

ShiningToast's avatar

I agree, less of a stockpile is definitely a plus.

The only negative I can see is that someone who has (or will have because of the reduction) more warheads than us sees this, and takes advantage of it. (I seriously doubt this will happen anyways.)

boxing's avatar

Generally a good thing, but it is important to still HAVE some. The only bad thing I can think of immediately, is possibly some would lose jobs…

ShiningToast's avatar

@Captain_Fantasy Russia did have bombers get caught in British Airspace this week. Interesting…....

I’m not surprised in the slightest that we have the maximum allowed within the current regulations though.

WestRiverrat's avatar

Depends on if they destroy their stock piles, or sell them to the highest bidder.

cockswain's avatar

I’m sure he’ll be attacked by Hannity and the gang for “weakening our nation”, but during the Cold War both sides accumulated a large enough nuclear arsenal to wipe out all life on the planet (and don’t bind me to the number) like 10 times over. So in theory they could reduce to 1/10 the current stockpile and still be sufficiently dangerous. I look at this as a step in the right direction. There never should really be any reason to kill millions of people in a moment.

RandomMrAdam's avatar

I’m sure majority of people who posted in this fluther posting will be super excited.

galileogirl's avatar

Well the conservatives are already saying it prves Obama is soft on defense. I never could understand why anybody could think of nuclear weapons as defensive.

mattbrowne's avatar

Perhaps Bruce Willis having to blow up multiple comets.

galileogirl's avatar

Thus turning a few big projectiles into dozens of medium-sized projectiles, Whoops!

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther