Libertarian Party

That Time the Libertarian Party Debated the Private Ownership of Nuclear Weapons

Friday A/V Club: Great moments from the C-SPAN archive

|

The Libertarian Party plans to choose its presidential nominee tomorrow. The process will take place online, thanks to the coronavirus, so this weekend C-SPAN addicts will be denied the pleasure of watching live as delegates meet in person to discuss the finer points of their platform.

Fortunately, C-SPAN's website includes hundreds of hours of old programming. And deep in those archives, you'll find one of the more entertaining blips in Libertarian Party history: a debate over whether the law should allow the private ownership of nuclear weapons.

I can't embed the video, but you can view it here. It was shot in Chicago in 1991, at the convention that picked the former Alaska state legislator Andre Marrou as the Libertarian candidate for president. (In those days, the Libertarian Party nominated its slate a year before the major parties did.) The delegates were considering a revamped version of the platform's anti-gun-control plank, and the debate had mostly dealt with minor matters of how certain sentences should be worded. Then a fellow from New Hampshire rose to propose an amendment: "We advocate the right of all private citizens to own any weapon or device which any government agency possesses."

The crowd greeted this with a mixture of applause and laughter. Someone seconded it, and then the formal debate began.

At one end of the spectrum was an Indiana delegate who felt that "given the current state—the police state—it makes no sense" for the federal government to have better weapons than the taxpayers. At the other end was Ed Clark, the party's presidential nominee in 1980, who argued that civilized people should favor the abolition of nuclear weapons, not their more widespread ownership. One man made the rather reasonable point that there's a difference between weapons that can be targeted at specific aggressors and weapons that by their nature hurt innocent civilians. Some folks didn't bother weighing in on whether the plank was philosophically sound, instead pointing out that the party's candidates would probably prefer not to deal with press queries about private nukes.

But the key moment of the debate—the comment that seemed to sum up thousands of intra-libertarian ideological battles—came about two minutes into the discussion, when a delegate rose to speak in favor of the amendment. "I think it's an absolutely abhorrent idea," he said, "but it is consistent."

The economist Clifford Thies eventually found a way to split the baby, offering some substitute language calibrated to appeal both to voters who dreamed of owning their own WMDs and voters who would ban the bomb: "Any weapon denied individuals should likewise be denied governments." This attracted some opposition from a delegate who felt it implied support for unilateral disarmament, but the assembled body liked it enough to make it, rather than the original amendment, the language being considered by the floor.

And then, having defeated the first proposal, they voted down Thies's replacement as well. The finished platform did not address the private ownership of nukes and nerve gas. That's the Libertarian Party for you: not radical enough to please the purists, but still willing to put them on national television.

(For past editions of the Friday A/V Club, go here.)

Advertisement

NEXT: Review: The Trip to Greece

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Just like point an unarmed gun at people constitutes a threat then so does having an unarmed nuclear weapon pose a threat.
    This applies to all bombs to one extent or another based mostly on range.

    Keep in mind that bombs do not needing aiming to be a threat.

    The above threat would apply to U.S. owned bombs too – not just civilian ones.

    1. The other thing is that if you are going to go full on radical libertarian and claim the individual has a right to own whatever he likes, then you also have to admit that a bomb of any kind and especially a nuclear weapon can never be used even in self defense consistent with the NAP. Any time I drop a bomb of that size I am certain to kill innocent people. There is no way to use a nuclear weapon consistent with self defense and the NAP.

      1. There is no way to use a nuclear weapon consistent with self defense and the NAP.

        Except maybe if a hostile alien space fleet is far enough from Earth to nuke without any radiation falling back on our heads. I’m not sure that nukes are even effective in space though. I do think Elon Musk should start thinking about armaments for his space fleet.

        /fucking around

        1. Actually I know this is just fucking around, but this is a good point. Nuclear devices have more than weapon uses. For example, the Orion Drive is powered by detonating small nukes. Likewise, nukes may be useful in the deflection of space objects.

          I tend to agree with John that Nukes are fundamentally inconsistent with the NAP here on earth, but as we transition to space, that will change. A low yield weapon may have many uses, and in the vast emptiness of space, its use could be very precise to avoid damaging noncombatants.

          Overall, my problem is not with banning Nukes, so much as the effort to avoid people getting nukes can also prevent getting other tools that would be useful. Luckily this is a theoretical problem where the boundaries can be explored over time.

          1. The use of nukes for private space travel is a good point. I could see private ownership making sense there. The thing about nukes on earth at least is that they really are a special case. Biological weapons can be even more dangerous but the tools to make them are also used to make really productive and valuable things. So, it is really hard to ban private ownership of biological weapons without also banning private ownership of about any lab. Nukes, however, are different. HEU or Plutonium can be used in reactors but you don’t need it to have a reactor and using HEU versus say 20% enriched Uranium doesn’t make the reactor work any better or make it any more efficient. The only time HEU is used in a reactor is in submarines and that is because it lasts longer and it is so hard to change out the fuel rods in a submarine. That isn’t true in an ordinary reactor. So, it is virtually impossible to come up with a peaceful reason to have large amounts of HEU or Plutonium on earth.

            Space, however, is different. And if the day ever comes that we have interplanetary travel that uses nuclear weapons for propulsion, then I could totally see private ownership of such weapons being legal.

            1. When I thought I could hack it as a science fiction author, the most dismaying thing to happen was finding the following website:

              http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/

              That site really tries to apply true science to space and blows up all sorts of tropes. For example, “There is no Stealth in Space”. But the most interesting thing was that if you have a ship capable of making any destination in space within a good time frame, you basically have a weapon of mass destruction, and your story is going to have to deal with that problem- hundreds of private ships all with engines capable of burning off half of a planet’s atmosphere.

              1. Interesting website. I’ll have to explore it further in my ample free time… wait.

                1. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . URe Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

                  Heres what I do……► New Income Opportunities

          2. For example, the Orion Drive is powered by detonating small nukes.

            Personally I’ve never been a big fan of the Orion Drive concept. Seems like an inefficient use of nuclear technology to me. Plus I’d think the acceleration would be pulsing with each detonation unless you were detonating nukes so fast that it smoothed out, which seems like a waste of a lot of nukes. It may be fine for cargo but for human spaceflight I’d think the constant pulsating acceleration would be annoying and difficult for people to work in. I think something that provides more constant acceleration would be preferable.

            Back when I was in college and could actually do fairly complex orbital mechanics for “fun” I once decided to see how long it would take to get Mars accelerating at a constant rate of 1g until you had enough momentum to coast the rest of the way as well as if you kept accelerating past that point so that you had to turn around and burn in the opposite direction to slow down. IIRC in the latter case you get from LEO to Mars in ~6 days, if you cut the engines and coasted once you had enough energy to reach Mars you could do it in something like 2-3 weeks as opposed to ~6 months for a Hohmann transfer (take w/ a grain of salt – it’s been 20 years and I’m goign off memory here).

            TL;DR, it’s safe to say the primary limiting technological factor in going from where we are now to something like The Expanse is propulsion technology.

            1. The thing about Orion engines is that nuclear fission is an extremely energy dense reaction. The energy (and therefore impulse) received from a splitting a heavy plutonium atom is massive compared to the energy received from flinging a hydrogen or water molecule out the back of your ship. Keep in mind that many of the Orion ships envisioned are BIG precisely so that the multiple pulses of your small bombs can be evened out. It would be unlike anything we are familiar with today. When we think about pulses, we think “speedup then slowdown”. In an orion, it would be “increase speed…pause…Increase speed…pause….” which can be lowered to the point you may not notice it.

              The RHO site is interesting, because what you will find is that it is extremely difficult to get a full 1 G burn the entire way. Let’s just say your fuel is something like an atomic reactor, which is pretty energy dense. You still need a propellant, like water or hydrogen that gets heated up and exhausted out the back to make thrust. To get 1g of burn for 6 days, you are building a huge propellant tank that requires a bigger ship, which requires more propellant, meaning more mass, etc etc.

              RHO goes through the trouble of identifying where the sweet spots of energy density might be. You can get lost for hours in there.

              1. The RHO site is interesting, because what you will find is that it is extremely difficult to get a full 1 G burn the entire way. Let’s just say your fuel is something like an atomic reactor, which is pretty energy dense. You still need a propellant, like water or hydrogen that gets heated up and exhausted out the back to make thrust.

                No argument here, I was more or less doing the calculations to play with “what if” scenarios. You’d need something beyond even Nuclear Thermal Rockets in order to avoid having an overly massive spacecraft. Maybe some sort TBD fusion based plasma propulsion system that was capable of producing an extremely high specific impulse in addition to a very large mass flow rate. Obviously we haven’t even come close to any kind of technology like that.

                The Orion Drive is probably the most realistically achievable short term solution (e.g. in the next 100 years or so), it just doesn’t strike me as a very elegant solution. It’s more of a brute force “make do with what we’ve got for now” kind of thing. Which I suppose would be OK as a bridge to something better later.

      2. Fuck off John. If I want to own my own high powered nuclear weapon who are you to tell me I can’t use one? And about your argument… I’m a responsible citizen and a trained engineer. I don’t need nanny-staters like you telling me, a trained person who knows more about U-238 than 99.99% of the population to tell me how to construct an implosion-type nuclear weapon with a yield of ~20 kt. If I blow it up in the middle of nowhere inNevada who is going to know and why would I be violating the NAP. Just because you were in the military, John, doesn’t give you a monopoly on the use of force, John, you fucking slaver. Fuck off.

        1. Thanks for totally missing the point and saying something stupid and unresponsive. Bravo.

          1. Why are slavers like you John so willing to draw arbitrary lines around my personal liberty? It’s almost as if you’re willing to consider the larger implications of owning a weapon on society. Of course, that’s monstrously wrong.

          2. Next you’re going to tell me that people who think we ought to keep assault rifles out of the hands of nutcases is a good idea, John. You sound like a gun-grabbing fucking Democratic cuck.

            1. Yeah there is totally no difference between a machine gun and a bomb that can destroy a city and kill ten million or more people. None at all. If we can say you can’t own a hydrogen bomb, then the government can also say you can’t own a machine gun or any gun.

              Yeah that makes sense. I am not sure what is more sad, the point you are trying to make or the fact that you actually think it is clever.

              1. I’m talking about dropping a small tactical nuclear weapon out in the Nevada desert, John. Who is going to be harmed by that? You sound like the biggest weapon grabbing cuck, John. Why don’t you take your purely arbitrary definitions of what constitutes a legitimate weapon and tell that to your friends in the Democrat party? They’re perfectly willing to listen to your arguments about we should adopt sensible restrictions on weapon ownership and are perfectly willing to infringe upon my freedom— just like you, John.

                1. The entire world is going to b e harmed by that. Google “radioactive fallout”. There is a reason why the world stopped doing above ground testing.

                  And as far as below ground testing, that creates real problems too. Look at what is happening to the North Korean nuclear test site for an example.

                  You are not really making a point her other than that you are stupid and are trying to strawman libertarians into looking ridiculous.

            2. Nutcases? Like the commies and homo’s that were thrown into mental institutions up until the 60s-70s? No thanks. Until the government can show that it can restrain itself, I don’t see why we should even consider granting it new powers to abuse. The cure you prescribe is worse then the disease.

          3. He just really, really wanted to call somebody else a “slaver” for a change, and took the opportunity.
            Of course, like with everything else, AmSoc didn’t understand what everyone was taking about in the first place.

        2. U238 isn’t fissable, you need u235.
          Party of science my ass

          1. That’s why I’m trying to encourage him to go ahead and try building his own nuke. Not only will it not work with U238 but the fucker will probably give himself radiation poisoning in the process.

            On a side note, it’s hilarious when idiots try to construct some ridiculous strawman thinking they’ve found some sort of “gotcha” argument only to end up dunking on themselves and looking like complete morons in the process. It’s almost sad.

          2. U-238 is fissionable; you just need much more energetic neutrons to do it with, than those from splitting transuranics. Fast neutrons emitted from De-T fusion do nicely.

            He’ll likely give himself heavy metal poisoning before any radiation hazard. Though there was the infamous case of the ‘radioactive Boy Scout.’

        3. I don’t need nanny-staters like you telling me, a trained person who knows more about U-238 than 99.99% of the population to tell me how to construct an implosion-type nuclear weapon with a yield of ~20 kt.

          I think I speak for most everyone here when I say: by all means, go ahead and try. *pops popcorn* This ought to be hilarious.

        4. I’m a responsible citizen and a trained engineer…
          a trained person who knows more about U-238…
          If I blow it up in the middle of nowhere in Nevada who is going to know

          Socialists eschew personal responsibility…
          U-235, or Pu-238 (or 239)…
          Anyone with a seismograph.

          Engineer, my ass.

          1. Answer me this: why should my rights suffer because of John’s fear and misunderstanding of U-2385. He sounds like a bazooka and nuclear weapons grabbing nanny-stater.

            1. Because you support a system that denies the rights of the individual.

        5. U-238 is depleted and not used in bombs. Bombs use U-235. I guess your knowledge as a trained person doesn’t cover the basics.

      3. One should point out that there is a distinct difference between a nuclear device and a nuclear bomb. The latter is explicitly a weapon. I can easily allow for the ownership of nuclear devices. I would still have the government oversea and regulate such efforts, so long a government exists, but if not, whatever corresponding system emerges in an anarcho-ism will oversee and regulate as well.

        But in terms of weapons, ban them. With or without government. These are not weapons of self defense. They cannot be reasonably used without loss of innocent life. The only moral use of them is if a state actor was rampaging across the land in such a way that their use would save more lives than were destroyed. And that’s an extreme case that has never before happened. The use of tehm against Japan was not to stop a rampaging nation state, but against a nation that had already essentially lost a war. The argument that the bombs saved hundreds of thousands of American lives when we invaded is specious because we never needed to invade Japan at that point.

        So no, Libertarians don’t get to own nuclear weapons.

        1. But you need government to stop a libertarian from obtaining one. And that government has to be stronger and better armed. Therefore you are supporting a police state.

        2. The only moral use of them is if a state actor was rampaging across the land in such a way that their use would save more lives than were destroyed. And that’s an extreme case that has never before happened.

          1000 years ago the first muslim expansion was occurring. If they had been available, that would have been a good use. Today, cutting this post ottoman empire surge all the way down to the grandchildren would be another good use.

      4. “you also have to admit that a bomb of any kind and especially a nuclear weapon can never be used even in self defense consistent with the NAP. Any time I drop a bomb of that size I am certain to kill innocent people”

        You might want to go to NUKEMAP and run the simulations for different explosive yields. A 10-20 kiloton bomb is very good at blowing up something the size of a small downtown area, military base or aircraft carrier battle group, but above 20 kilotons the area of destruction only increases gradually. You’d need hundreds of 20-50 KT bombs or dozens of megaton-class bombs to flatten a mid-sized US metro area.

        There’s a whole chapter about that in Sam Cohen’s ‘F*** You Mr. President: Confessions of the Father of the Neutron Bomb.’ In particular he noted that Little Boy or Fat Man would not have been as effective against a city like Berlin.

        Bombs are most effective against hard targets (bunkers), concentrated targets (bases, fleets, harbors) and targets that that can be tracked but are hard to hit directly (ICBM re-entry vehicles and stealth aircraft that show up on VHF radars).

        1. I don’t know why the heck the site keeps posting my replies below the wrong post. This was in reply to John’s post, excerpted. It seems to happen only if I take a long time to write the post.

      5. You can earn online more than you think. I am making more than 3500 dollars per week doing this link posting job. Start earning without selling or investing anything.
        See my earnings and join here……….………..………Home Profit System

    2. “Keep in mind that bombs do not needing aiming to be a threat.”

      This does not seem right to me. Or put another way, the logic that says having a large bomb in your house is a threat is the same logic that says open carrying a shotgun is a threat. The actions that would result in the bomb harming someone (and thus constituting an active threat) are not sufficiently different than the actions leading to that shotgun harming a bystander.

      1. It’s not the gun or the nuclear weapon that kills people, it’s the person using it. Why should we ban either? Man, you libertarians are a bunch of pussies.

      2. “the logic that says having a large bomb in your house is a threat is the same logic that says open carrying a shotgun is a threat.”

        No in fact it isn’t.

        1. Why? A large bomb is only a threat if it is detonated in a crowded space. How is it’s existence in your basement just a general threat?

          This was the line that he said:
          “Keep in mind that bombs do not needing aiming to be a threat.”

          Well a shotgun open carried doesn’t need to be aimed to be a threat. It takes a human making a threat with it to make it a threat, just as it requires a person wielding a bomb to make a threat before the bomb is a threat.

          1. The bomb in your basement is a threat to your neighbors. The size of the bomb matters. A hand grenade in your basement won’t kill anyone but you and your loving family. The blast radius is too small. Several hundred pounds of ANFO could end up killing most of the block. And that’s before we get to nukes, which could take out a small town.

            Note that owning ANFO is legal. But storing it in your residential basement is not.

    3. Every time a mugger sees an armed cop or security guard and passes up an intended victim, that weapon was used in the successful defense of individual rights regardless of whether anyone besides the mugger even noticed the event. Just so, we used nuclear weapons every day during the Cold War to successfully dissuade the Soviet dictatorship from committing misdeeds.

  2. How about biological weapons?

    The logic used by some to enforce and expand pandemic powers seems to be that we are all now bio weapons threatening innocent people, and that we must be regulated and constrained.

    1. How could you ever use a biological weapon consistent with the NAP? You absolutely have a right to self defense. But I don’t see how that right extends to using weapons that indiscriminately kill innocent people in addition to whomever you see as a threat to your life.

      1. I am no expert on biologics of any sort. But two points:

        Are there any biologics which can only be used as weapons, or do all have research and medical properties which make them indistinguishable?

        Perhaps the only way to distinguish biologics as weapons is the quantity and how they are stored, e.g. as weapons or in ordinary vats.

        1. The same thing for chemicals: are there any chemicals which have no peaceful industrial uses? And maybe the container and quantity is what marks them as weapons.

          1. Most chemicals in chemical weapons do have peaceful commercial use. But the “weapon” part of “chemical weapon” is what makes it’s different. Bug killer in a spray bottle is fine, a large amount of bug killer packaged with an explosive for wide dispersal is not.

        2. do all have research and medical properties
          They all have research properties in developing defenses against them. That is true for developing any CBR defense against NBC agents. Some have peaceful uses (industrial chemicals, nuclear power, …). Others have no or limited utility (CWC Schedule 1 compounds).

  3. Who else has consistently abhorrent policy proposals?

    1. The Democratic Socialists.

    2. The Libertarian Defense Caucus position at the time was no problem with individuals owning weapons they can carry on foot, but grave misgivings abt anyone but U.S. or State militias having fieldpieces.

  4. The Party’s chair looked like he’d rather be somewhere else during this nationally televised segment!

    1. It is hard to imagine many worse jobs than being the Libertarian Party Chair.

      1. Gong Farmer.

      2. Being Hihn’s mom.

        1. I can’t even contemplate how bad that must be.

          1. The one job Mike Rowe wouldn’t tackle.
            The 24/7 nausea and dizziness coupled with the constant risk of sepsis and hearing loss made it too risky.

      3. Cat herder maybe?

  5. Who would you trust more with nuclear bombs?

    Google, or North Korea?

    1. NORKs.

      North Korea would fear retaliation; but Google wouldn’t and would destroy us for our own good and with the approval of their own conscience.

      1. Yes. I trust North Korea a lot more than I trust Google.

    2. I’d fear Google more since they are more competent. Norks are more likely to blow themselves up.

      As for trust, I don’t know; that’s a toss up.

  6. this weekend C-SPAN addicts will be denied the pleasure of watching live as delegates meet in person to discuss the finer points of their platform.

    Probably not a bad thing.

  7. Chuck E. Cheese delivers pizza using another name, and it’s not alone. To drum up delivery businesses, big restaurant chains are rebranding themselves in apps like Grubhub. That could mean more competition for local joints.
    https://twitter.com/i/events/1263521179199029248

    Pizzas made in the kitchens of select Chuck E. Cheese locations are sold under a different name on Grubhub: “Pasqually’s Pizza & Wings.” What makes this particularly interesting here in the Philly area is there is actually a Pasqually’s Pizza that’s been around for years. The emotional side of me wants to say this is borderline unethical, but then it occurs to me, is this really any different than the standard corporate practice of marketing different brands at different price points? Hell, there’s virtually no competition in the optical field — virtually all optician chains and and eyeglass brands are owned by Luxottica, who owns EyeMed insurance too — or in the haircutting field. Plenty of ostensibly competing fast food chains are owned by the same holding companies too. Fake competition is the order of the day.

    1. I took the nieces and nephews to one of their child casinos last time I visited. I didn’t eat there, but the pizza did not look good.

      1. I’ve never heard them called “child casinos” before. That’s a good one.

        And yes, the pizza is dreadful. It has the taste of dilute cardboard.

    2. I don’t mind them changing their name. Infringing on someone else’s trademark is another thing…Something that Libertarians are divided on…

      When I last ate at Chuck E Cheeze, the pizza was oil-soaked bread with cheese and peperoni on it. It was fine with beer. I would not go out of my way to order it. If people order this pizza and like it, that is bizarre. I would expect the Yelp reviews (or whatever Grubhub offers) to very quickly tell buyers if there were quality problems.

    3. Pizzas made in the kitchens of select Chuck E. Cheese locations are sold under a different name on Grubhub: “Pasqually’s Pizza & Wings.”

      Good to know. I’ll make sure not order pizza from them if I see a listing for them here (Denver). Their pizza is disgusting. No one goes there for the food, so I can understand them not wanting to use their real name for take out.

  8. By the way, I would rather be arguing the merits of owning nuclear weapons in the comments, based on a debate that happened 20 years ago, than yet another “Trump sed wat?!!” shit thread. Walker, you reading?

    1. ^This^

      Even with AmSoc lamely attempting to troll/ shitpost the thread into oblivion.

    2. I aims to please.

      1. Sam Cohen did a talk on discriminating weapons right about then. Some nuclear weapons were designed for demolition work with no casualties. Others as an overhead starburst yielding neutrons to excite chemicals scattered at approaches to underground bunkers. After the detonation no one could enter or leave the area for 2 or 3 days, after which the high-energy, short-halflife stuff fades out. The idea resembled self-removing barbed wire. Decisions to kill or commit aggression are ethical, choice of retaliatory or defensive gear is engineering.

  9. Anyone opposed to the private ownership of Recreational or Other Use Nuclear arms is a statist cuck.

    1. The Kremlin was terrified of its own military personnel suddenly privatizing a nuclear bomber or sub, hence the emphasis on fire-and-forget missiles more easily intercepted. Their fear of weapons in renegade hands made the Strategic Defense Initiative the winning hand. U.S. forces had comparatively little reason to expect our servicemen to use their weapons to attack even the unpopular Bush Daddy Administration. Our Looking Glass aircraft crews could launch entire groups of ICBMs even if the ground crews had been disabled.

  10. Just one more nail in the coffin of the LP. As long as they continue to argue for such simplistic principles they will never achieve any electoral victories that matter.

    1. Every election the LP gets votes, each of which packs the law-changing clout of at least a couple dozen votes wasted on the looter kleptocracy. Religious fanatics got 1.4% of the vote on average, yet got the Prohibition Amendment into the Constitution with very few down-ballot candidates actually elected. Look at how George Wallace divided the Dems and turned the GOP into an offshoot of the KKK by losing an election. If your kid was not drafted and shot, thank the LP. If your kid is in jail for pot, voting LP is a get out of jail card.

    2. continue to argue for such simplistic principles…

      Core principle. Wasn’t one of the first reactors fissioned in a squash court at a Chicago University?

      Why can’t I fuck around on the weekends in my garage with a tokamak or molten salt reactor? Can I not aspire at least to the level of Chicago schoolteachers? Would you take that from me also.

  11. I dunno, I think if there is one thing that would keep Washington in check is fear of getting nuked by irate citizens.

  12. You were a bunch of retards then and you’re still a bunch of retards.

    “Dear Diary, it was cold today
    But the sun came out later
    So I went out and strolled about looking at the shops
    Didn’t really see anything I liked so I didn’t buy anything
    On the way home I posted a letter
    Been quite a nice day
    Somebody exploded an H-bomb today
    But it wasn’t anybody I knew”

    –Moody Blues, “Dear Diary”

  13. If you are doing something that would cause someone to want to own a nuclear weapon, you should probably stop doing it.

Please to post comments