Weapons of Mass Destruction?
450195
No. Lots of countries have WMD.\nWhat are we waiting for, let's get N. Korea and Iran!!!\n\nIt actually WAS our duty to act as the police of the world but now it is not since we are not moral anymore--I.E. torture of prisoners, locking them away without trials or lawyers or telling them the charges, etc.\n\nWe no longer have the moral high ground in the world.\nWe are no better than a third world country morally now.
699924
HA! You need to qualify that to ask why do they NOW say this! Look at these documented quotes from liberals BEFORE we ousted Saddam:\n\n"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." \n       President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.     \n\n"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." \n       President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.     \n\n"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." \n       Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.     \n\n"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." \n       Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.     \n\n"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." \n       Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.     \n\n"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." \n      Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.     \n\n"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." \n       Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.     \n\n"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." \n       Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.     \n\n"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." \n       Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.     \n\n"We know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." \n       Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.     \n\n"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." \n       Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.     \n\n"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." \n       Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.     \n\n"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build u
739239
yup religion is a weapon of mass destruction
767983
Health, and weapons.  Have you looked at Wikipedia.com?
34015
World peace. Unfortunately that not going to happen. They only thing we can do at this time is just keep a very careful watch. The sad thing is there is no way to destroy them. By deactivating them we just turn them off. They can be reactivated.
961876
Most likely they are in the hands of Iraqi police or soldiers.  All we know is that the Iraqi record keeping was poor.  This does not necessarily mean that the weapons are in the hands of terrorists.
774849
Special Weapons and Tactics
799420
nuke, blitz, explosive device, grenade, kaboom
568149
pfft the best weapon to use would obviously be a Rocket Launcher that shoots chainsaws that are uhhh... on fire ohhhh and it homes in on you and.... it turns into a shark and eats you while the chainsaw cuts and burns you then it pours alcohal on you sooo you would be like OWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW! then it drops a really heavy weight on you that .... EXPLODES!
19803
retorical Question? I think less of a chance of destroying the world now day but more of a chance that millions might die or at least affected by such weapons
964611
nuclear warheads can be delivered as:\n\n1. bombs (obviously you don't need satellites for this)\n2. cruise missiles (Wikipedia: "The lowest cost system in wide use uses a radar altimeter, barometric altimeter and clock to navigate a digital strip map. Some systems may now use satellite navigation or inertial guidance, but these are substantially more expensive...")\n\nI think ballistic missiles need GPS but I'm not sure. either way we have plenty of nukes that don't need satellites, enough to destroy the world once over, I'm sure.
78527
yes, they are developing "bunker buster" cruise missles that "dig" underground and explode. They also make "tactical nukes" which are essentially low yeild nukes fired from a cannon. and there is of course the uranium shells used by U.S. tanks in Iraq. They use uranium to harden the steel of the shells to better pierce armor, although these are not specifically "nukes" they have a lot of the nasty side effects like cancer causing radiation. I don't know if the U.S. still makes ICBM's, but I'm pretty sure they do. I know the most recent ICBM's are multiple warheads essentially 7 nukes in one, each with a blast zone exponentially larger than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
577631
We nuked them.\n\nThey sell us electronics that leak radiation.
1086972
there is a laser,invented at the time of the cold war, i think in the 80's, it interfears with the rocket's laser targeting device,for example a tomahawk wont find the target an i think she will selfdestroy,but that laser gun was interdicted.I heard that exist an laser gun that could destroy an rocket,i heard about an experiment with the russian 2 war's rocket KATIUSHA,two of those rockets were destroyed.
93404
Russia dropped!!!!from an airplane this hugh super H-Bomb...it was meant to scare the US. There is a video of it on the net somewhere. It was the biggest one set off..I found a link to it below
567601
No Weapons of Mass Destruction. The use Depleted Uranium. The lack of rebuilding Iraq. Halliburton stealing untold billions of dollars. Bush's ties to Saudi Arabia where the terrorists came from. The fact that the price of oil has doubled and Bu$h's big oil ties rankle average Americans. The fact that the government either let 9-11 happen or was involved in the whole thing as a "New Pearl Harbour" event.\nLook up Project for a New American Century and New pearl Harbour and this search will open your eyes. The neo-conservatives who appear to be willing to let America self destruct rather than support America at home. \n\nThe fact that millions of illegal immigrants are flooding the United States and the National Guard is in Iraq. \n\nPre-Emptive wars. They are immoral.\n\nLook for another 9-11 like event blamed on Iran. Look for Russia to retaliate for any preemptive strike on Iran. America does not want to be involved in pre-emptive wars. The money is being pilfered by the ultra rich while the poor are becoming poorer. Wallstreet wins and the average American is losing. A trillion dollars worth of war time debt that America's children will have to pay for a war that was started from false information.\n\nChina is making moves and America is now heavily in debt to China. \n\nThere a many thousands of reasons why America does not want to be involved in foreign entanglements but the main reason is because war is wrong. Refuse to partipate in them. They have become nuclear battlefields with more radiation then hundreds of Hiroshima and Nagasaki A Bombs. \n\nPeace is Patriotic.
1065055
All the weapons that have ever existed on Earth couldn't do more than split Mars into a couple chunks, which would just gravitate back together. You would need to literally pulverize the planet, and none of the weapons that we can make are even close to powerful enough to do that.