Comments by "Clint Holmes" (@clintholmes2061) on "Biden Points Out Agent With Nuclear Codes! Warns of Trump" video.

  1. Do you realize that argument goes both ways? Do you want Iran to have nukes? Well, when Iranians ask why they should or shouldn't have nukes they give the same argument you just gave... the US has them right?... is what they say.
    14
  2. That is sarcasm right? I hope. It's tough to tell on the internet sometimes.
    6
  3. Regarding, "is there any leaders from those countries listed that you might not trust with a nuclear weapon?" All of them.
    4
  4. Vote your values please. For me that means I will be voting for Jill Stein. I suggest you do the same.
    3
  5. Regarding, "So what, let's disarm?" Yup. Wouldn't it be nice to have the moral high ground when talking to countries like Iran when telling them they shouldn't have nukes by us not having them as well. Regarding, "Having Nukes is the best and only deterrent to not attack a nuclear power." Or we could work toward world without them. Then there would be no need for such a deterrent. Regarding, "They are here on this earth, no going back on it." Nice can't do spirit. Why even bother try to make the world a better place. Got it.
    3
  6. Michael regarding, "we can't go back because the technology exist now." Thanks for clearing that up. I was obviously suggesting the world be placed into a time machine and we all go back in time in a delorean. Now I understand. Regarding, "that's why there's sooo many and not just 10 nukes per capable country. Its either a lot of nukes or no nukes" Um. Just out of curiosity do you at least think there would be a point where there were too many nukes? The US and russia each have about 7500 nukes. That doesn't seem a little excessive to you? Would these countries be any less of a power or deterrent if the "only" had 1000 nukes? Or do you think if that was all the US had Russia would be like, "fuck yeah... look at those pussies... may as well start ww3. It's like they aren't even trying." Israel has about 100. Are they still considered a nuclear power to you? Or are they barely worth mentioning or don't even count at all because they don't have lots and lots and lots of nukes. I mean. 100 nukes? Just imagine how "little" damage they could do with them. You know these weapons of mass destruction (the term we used to wrongfully justify invading another country) cost lots of money to make right? And to protect right? And in all honesty I feel that of those 7500 nukes the US THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE STOLEN AND USED AGAINST US THAN US USING THEM. Regarding, "A lot of nukes gives reason not to launch because it'd be the end of everyone." Take a moment to please think about these words. IT'D BE THE END OF EVERYONE. I actually agree with those words but I guess I think differently about them than you do. What is the purpose of having the ability to destroy the world? Who wins if something like that happens? Are you really willing to do this? Or is this just a big bluff that you would be using with a losing poker hand? Regarding, "Having no nukes puts everyone at risk at every moment because we're capable of making one at the snap of a finger." Again do you not realize how silly this statement might seem? A world with no nukes is the dangerous world to you because they COULD be made... and the safe world is the world with 20K nukes in the world?!? I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. And it also is not as easy to make nukes as you suggest or Iran would already have them. That said I concede that if the US wants to makes nukes they can do so rather quickly, but I feel the world with less nukes is actually the safer place.
    2