Arms Control Today, the official magazine for everybody who hates

I'm pretty sure that magazine focuses on the international arms trade between national governments and has next to nothing to do with an individual's right to bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment.

>>30466527
So you're saying nations shouldn't be allowed to bare arms?

>>30466553
So you're saying Iran should have nukes?

>>30466513
So basically propaganda leaflets dropped by enemy forces but your pay for them to be delivered?

>>30466553
You're saying the military industrial complex is a good thing?

>>30466513
>newsmaker interviews

why the fuck would i care about what someone who makes news publications has to say?

File: cryingmajor.png (782KB, 880x987px) Image search: [Google]

782KB, 880x987px

Governments sign anti arms trafficking treaties, because they hate competition from the private sector.

How can the CIA buy influence of Syrian "freedom fighters". If Nicholas Cage is already supplying them?

>>30466718
from a purely objective standpoint they have the same right to nukes as everyone else

it would be bad for the west though, because then western governments can no longer threaten to invade and have it mean anything

>>30466527
small arms and light weapons are a part of international arms trade. if you control arms trade between governments but not between civilians then the civilian arms trade becomes a back channel for arms movement. thus, this does affect the right to keep and bear arms.

to countries that have a large small arms market like the US it doesn't change things much, but in countries where people rely mostly on arms imports to satisfy their need it tends to make things shitty

>>30466718
>>30466791
Actually yes. Nuclear weapons were the only thing that prevented WW3 so far. Not saying we should be trigger happy, with some politician hovering over the red button, but this is a different matter.

>>30466513
>Iran having nuclear capabilities is a good thing; America should not be the only country with nuclear weapons.
>The US military complex is evil.
>Israel should not have nuclear weapons.

It's pretty obvious that foreign countries hire spies to infiltrate the media at this point.

China actually controls a lot of media in America.

Every nation should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Though I would put some ground rules in place.

1. country has to do all their own work. No buying nukes or scientists from others.
2. submit samples of your weapons grade material to the IAEA and permanent security council members. So we know the isotope fingerprint of your nuclear weapons. In case someone's bomb is used. We all know who did it.
3. undeclared nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon facilities are not allowed, and grounds for a spanking.
4. if for any reason at all, one or more of your bombs are used. Your country is forfeit.

>>30467233
Would you want that some African country builds a nuclear reactor on it's own?

File: 1453665861617.png (353KB, 566x800px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 566x800px

>>30467286
>tries to make nuclear reactor
>predictably fails
>kills everyone in Africa
>50 years later, New Rhodesia is founded
Not seeing any problems here

>>30467233
>4. if for any reason at all, one or more of your bombs are used. Your country is forfeit.
What does this mean? Is there any way this scenario wouldn't end in a nuclear apocalypse?