glockman19
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2007
- Messages
- 3,700
As much as they can afford or want to have.How much firepower should citizens be able to have?
As much as they can afford or want to have.How much firepower should citizens be able to have?
The only problem I see with private ownership of nukes is that it in no way is an effective defensive tool, nor a means by which one could overthrow the government while still leaving a livable world behind.
The whole reason the US keeps so many nuclear weapons is a defense against other nuclear nations. Under the "mutual destruction theory" a nuclear weapon is the only defense (right now) against another nuclear weapon. If the government were to turn tyrant, what defense would you have against a nuclear device?
Really?The only problem I see with private ownership of nukes is that it in no way is an effective defensive tool,
None. I think that was part of my point. Even if I had a nuclear device, how would I defend against the government if it was going to use nuclear weapons against it's people. Mutually assured destruction involves two parties which have a large enough physical distance that if one had nuclear weapons and one didn't then the one who had them would be able to destroy the one who didn't without destroying themselves. There is no practical way for the government and it's citizens to usefully deploy nuclear weapons against each other, that would be mutually assured suicide. Where would we target our weapons?