Should the US destroy its nuclear arsenal?

No. Our nuclear weapons keep foreign powers from declaring war on us. I like the idea that there won't be a draft, that my family members won't have to die to fight some screwed up dictator.

No. The US should not get rid of its guns, for many more reasons than defense. Guns are relatively easy to maintain and keep secure, we don't have even have to keep them in secret locations.

Of course we shouldn't, and neither should law abiding Americans who choose to own personal firearms.

Good post to show the flawed logic of the anti-2nd Amendment crowd.

I think we should. President Obama has shown that you don't need to resort to force. Dipolmatic solutions are always the best. Obama and Kerry masterfully manipulated Assad and Putin. In the future diplomatic solutions shall be the rule rather than the exception. The nuclear arsenal will not be needed.

CuriousRunner wrote:

There are many risks associated with having nuclear weapons, such as expensive upkeep and safe/secret storage. Additionally, nuclear weapons have the potential to kill a lot of people. Should we destroy our nuclear arsenal?

Now, ask yourself, would you answer the same if I replaced "nuclear weapons" with "guns" in the previous paragraph?

If your opinion changed, why?

CuriousRunner

That is one really lame analogy dude. If you want to argue for more, better, different, no change...regarding gun control, do it straight up. Don't make a terrible analogy that is so far from being applicable as to be laughable at best.

Oh yes yes yes thats the next wonderful thing we should do. If we would have done so decades ago when the libs marched all over against nukes...no more nukes! Lets do it! Do it now!

Definitely should destroy the nukes. Just the other day, I read a story about a man who accidentally blew up his son with a nuke when he came home late. And this one lady I know had a niece who's baby got a hold of the family nuke and accidentally blew herself up. They have to go.

[quote]Dr. Herman Billingstaff, Ph. d wrote:

Obama and Kerry masterfully manipulated Assad and Putin.

Ahhhhhhhh NO. Putin masterfully manipulated Obama and Kerry. Lets not kid ourselves.

hahaha

anti gun = vag idiots

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

hahaha

anti gun = vag idiots

Can't really take your post seriously. You forgot to say, 'libtards'.

Anyone who agrees with the premise of this thread should voluntarily contract AIDS on the grounds that it's morally wrong to wage war against pathogens invading your body.

marijuologist wrote:

Anyone who agrees with the premise of this thread should voluntarily contract AIDS on the grounds that it's morally wrong to wage war against pathogens invading your body.

Anyone who takes the 'premise' of this thread as being either A) the point that the OP is really attempting to discuss or B) a reasonable analogy should find their own special way to win this year's Darwin Award.

marijuologist should go first.

The real reason some people want the US to disarm has nothing to do with expense or safety. They want to weaken the US to the level of primitive countries.

Sell the nukes to the highest bidder.

marijuologist wrote:

The real reason some people want the US to disarm has nothing to do with expense or safety. They want to weaken the US to the level of primitive countries.

You have just proven my point. Please remove yourself from the gene pool. And, if you can, make it something clever. You wouldn't want to disappoint the Darwin Awards committee.

Recognizer of Bad Analogies wrote:

marijuologist wrote:

The real reason some people want the US to disarm has nothing to do with expense or safety. They want to weaken the US to the level of primitive countries.

You have just proven my point. Please remove yourself from the gene pool. And, if you can, make it something clever. You wouldn't want to disappoint the Darwin Awards committee.

Here, let me try.

THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT U.S. DISARMAMENT MORON!!!

Yeah we should blow up all our nuclear weapons at once.

marijuologist wrote:

The real reason some people want the US to disarm has nothing to do with expense or safety. They want to weaken the US to the level of primitive countries.

Sounds like what the anti-gun crowd wants to do to law-abiding citizens.

Nuclear weapons have real deterrent value. Guns don't owing to optimism bias and other quirks of the human brain and human decision making as well as the general superiority of consensus decision making over individual decision making.

Of course, I am still fairly anti-gun. To me the issue isn't the dumb NRA nonsense (of course fewer guns would mean fewer deaths, idiots, and of course way more people die accidentally from guns than protect their property!). Rather, some deaths are more valent and proximately emotionally wrenching than others and I am afraid 1 person who fails to be able to defend their home and family is worth more than 10 people for whom the gun was necessary, but not sufficient, to the ensuing death.

This is one of those issues where people need to stop assuming the other side is stupid or morally bankrupt (hell, that is most issues) and see that people merely have different moral intuitions about harms and the valence of types of harm.

Ugh, I meant I am fairly against gun laws except for like background checks and such.