Did you know...
Did you know...
You're viewing a single thread.
97 comments
-
Countries with nukes should never receive any aid for anything, ever.
That should be the price of having nukes.
-
What’s the logic behind this statement? Is it just that nukes are bad?
-
The logic is that if you put the world at risk, there should be consequences for that.
If you want the world to come running when you fall on hard times (and this can hardly be considered that, yet aid comes all the same) then you should give up your weapons of mass destruction.
If there's no consequence for having them, eventually everyone will have them. And then very rapidly nobody will. And that won't be a good day.
-
Ok. I kind of get your point. It seems like almost any country can put the world at risk though, with or without nukes. Aid isn’t given on how not-powerful a country is but how beneficial it is to the country supplying the aid. For example the us will prop up dictators it hates if it serves their interests. Topple democracies if it helps their interests. Nukes or no nukes it only makes sense. It would be nice if countries were all trying to make the best world to live in, but we aren’t there yet, and I’m sure you know that.
-
-
-
-
Why do we care if they admit it or not
-
Yet have them they do.
-
-
why wouldnt any country have them at this point, I feel like its just delusion assuming they dont
-
-
Do the same thing for guns and you've got yourself a deal
-
97 comments