Who would you rather have in charge of nuclear weapons?

[OnceConvinced]

When it comes down to who is in charge of nuclear weapons, who would you prefer to be in charge of them? Christians or Atheists?

I can see many Christians saying they should be in charge because they would say that the Atheists have no Godly ethics and no concern about the value of human life. Also no accountability for their actions.

On the other hand I could see Atheists saying that Christians so much want to see Christ return, they will hasten nuclear war to fulfil the prophecies of Armageddon, so that Christ can return. They may also argue that Christians have no value for human life here on Earth because the ultimate goal is eternal life in Heaven, so now doesn't matter.

So who would you rather see in charge of those nukes?

[Cathar1950]

Yeah, I think Amish should be an option in the poll. The only people who should be in charge of nuclear weapons are those who will never use them.

Amish are a sect of Christianity. Christians are one of the stated options. So you could honestly answer Christian with qualifications.

I think we could safely turn them over to the Mennonite Central Committee or to the Quakers as well, or the Jain monks would do as well.

Given they are passifist we are going to have to make then take over and it is a good theing they won't fight back.
I see it as a win/win.

[Evales]

There is insanity on both sides I would prefer to put them in the hands of someone who wouldn't use them.

[Cephus]

All nuclear weapons should be in the hands of passifists like the Amish and Quakers. If everyone had non-functional weapons then they would be working just fine.

Which makes them pointless. If we're going to do that, let's just dismantle them all and not have them in the first place. However, the question is who do we put them in the care of, not should we have them to begin with.

The only purpose in having them at all is to use them when necessary. We may hope we never have to, but to say we shouldn't have them at all is foolish.

[Cathar1950]

There is insanity on both sides I would prefer to put them in the hands of someone who wouldn't use them.

Me too.
It is to bad we even have them.
I am for some reason reminded of "the Day the earth Stood Still".
I found it interesting that more Anabaptist were killed during the Reformation then both Catholics and Protestants.
There was one group of Anabaptist that did fight back but you can see that killing an enemy that doesn't fight back is a little easier then those that fight back.
The one group that did fight back, it seems like it was Munster or something like that , gave Luther all he needed to declare the Anabaptist should be killed.
It seems he didn't like them or Jews.

[Cathar1950]

All nuclear weapons should be in the hands of passifists like the Amish and Quakers. If everyone had non-functional weapons then they would be working just fine.

Which makes them pointless. If we're going to do that, let's just dismantle them all and not have them in the first place. However, the question is who do we put them in the care of, not should we have them to begin with.

The only purpose in having them at all is to use them when necessary. We may hope we never have to, but to say we shouldn't have them at all is foolish.

I agree.
Killing everyone sound insane. It seems letting one side win, even the bad guys, makes more sense as at least they is the possiblity for change and groth of humans.