It's clear they can't handle them, either they use them as justification for invading non-nuclear countries or they threaten to start a nuclear holocaust at every opportunity.Even Mcdonald's™ would be more responsible in safely owning nuclear weapons.
>>489047748
>>489047962Thanks burger, Merry Christmas.
>>489047748Doesn't one of the italian mafia organizations (don't remember which one) supposedly have nukes?Tbh I'd trust those guys more than I trust the governments.
>>489048064You mean the Cosa Nostra or something? It's possible.PepsiCo™ owned many nukes for a short while and they never did anything as crazy as the government threatens with them.
>>489048282I think it was either Camorra and Ndrangheta.Apparently the latter deals in nuclear waste, so dirty bombs aren't that far off.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_waste_dumping_by_the_%27Ndrangheta
>>489047748dont fear the man that wants 1 nuclear weaponfear the men that want 2000
>>489047748How do you enforce such a ban?
>>489049686By LEGALLY allowing citizen's, militia's and private security companies to... I can't say the rest because we live under a nuke crazy state oligarchy.Also I don't get it.
>>489049937k
>>489049937They cost like a billion dollars for one and are very expensive to house and maintain. The government would still be the only entity which can afford to have them
>>489051260they're built by private contractors already.
>>489051746Government funded contracts
>>489051260Pepsi still managed to get them, but you're right that private entities don't have much of an incentive to spend all the money on nukes, if there was no government i'm sure some private security organizations would build some nukes though, maybe not the insane amount that government currently has, just enough to defend themselves against nuclear aggressors, and they would actually work.
