Als / Than Atomwaffen / Nuclear Weapons Auto / Car Chancen / Odds Design Erziehen / Raise Fix Gegen / Against Irgendein / Any Kinder / Children Mehr / More Nähren / Nourish Nuklear / Nuclear Platz / Place Sie / Them Waffen / Weapons Wertvoll / Valuable Zeit / Time
U.S. nuclear weapons that are available for presidential use are targeted against broad ocean areas.
Are we prepared to tolerate a world in which countries which care about morality lay down their nuclear weapons, leaving others to threaten the rest of the world or hold it to ransom?
Proliferation of nuclear weapons to terrorist organisations is far more dangerous than proliferation of nuclear weapons to states, even states like North Korea.
As for the assertion that nuclear weapons prevent wars, how many more wars are needed to refute this arguments? Tens of millions have died in the many wars that have taken place since 1945.
Nuclear weapons are intrinsically neither moral nor immoral, though they are more prone to immoral use than most weapons.
You probably don't need more weapons than what's required to destroy every city on earth. There's only 2,300 cities. So, the United States, by that criteria, only needs 2,300 nuclear weapons - well, we've got more than 25,000!
We've already seen proliferation. We started it with Britain, then France. Then we benignly let the Israelis do it. The Pakistanis and the Indians have recently done it. The Chinese have nuclear weapons.
The catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons require that it be treated as a top priority. Disarmament will work better than any alternative in reducing the risk of use.
We were fortunate to have the Russians as our childhood enemies. We practiced hiding under our desks in case they had the temerity to drop a nuclear weapon.
