Would You Take Your Dog’s Teeth Out So He Couldn’t Bite?

Cotton is a white poofball, an American Eskimo dog with perky eras and a long, lolling tongue. But underneath her cuddly exterior masked a mouthful of sharp teeth. Small-child-shredding, lawsuit-spurring sharp teeth.

Cotton’s owners tried all kinds of things to stop him from biting: a muzzle, puppy classes, books, videos, a dog aggression expert, a low protein diet and even an herbal remedy. They even tried less, uh, kind routes, like pepper spray and empty soda cans filled with rocks. (Jeez.) But nothing makes Cotton chill out.

So Cotton’s owners, the Krieger family, did something unusual. They had a doggie dentist zap away four millimeters of the pooch’s teeth using a laser. The Krieger family said they didn’t want to euthanize their dog, nor would most rescue groups take animal with a history of biting. So Cotton’s mommy looked into canine disarming, the practice of lasering off a dog’s sharp teeth, which is performed by a veterinary dentist. It cost $1,600 for Cotton’s four canine teeth to be taken off and then packed with something similar to a cavity filler.

The LA Times says canine disarming is opposed by the American Veterinary Medical Association because it doesn’t address the root causes of a dog’s aggression. The American Veterinary Dental College says it endorses canine disarming in special cases.

It sounds like the Kriegers made a good faith effort to find out why their dog is so aggressive, so this would be a special case. But as someone who grew up with a bunch of dogs and cats at home my whole life, I’m uncomfortable when people “de-” anything their pets: de-claw, de-tooth, etc. If that animal gets loose from its owners, it needs the weapons nature put on its body to survive outside. They’re animals, not toys to be configured to suit your wishes. Taming an aggressive dog is more understandable than stopping a cat from clawing up the Barc-a-lounger, but in general, I don’t think it’s fair to do these things to pets. Maybe families just need to admit it’s not a good fit?

Not surprisingly, the LA Times checked back in with Cotton and the Kriegers and learned the doggie still attacks people—he just can’t hurt them as badly anymore without his four canine teeth. Unfortunately, it seems like the whole process was for naught. [LA Times]

What do you think? Do you think canine disarming is something you’d do to your dog?

The Devastation Of The Hiroshima Bombing

In response, the US government issued a statement saying that the use of such weapons would only be considered in “extreme circumstances”. This policy was known as the “No First Use” policy.

However, in recent years, there has been a shift in US policy. The Trump administration has been clear that it is willing to use nuclear weapons first in a conflict. This change in policy has led to a lot of public debate.

There are a few key arguments for the No First Use policy. Firstly, it decreases the likelihood of nuclear war. If the US has a policy of not using nuclear weapons first, then other countries are less likely to use them against the US. This is because they know that the US would not respond with nuclear weapons, so there is no reason for them to use them in the first place.

Secondly, the No First Use policy sends a strong message to the world that the US is committed to peace. It shows that the US is willing to de-escalate a conflict and that it is not interested in using nuclear weapons. This can help to prevent other countries from feeling the need to develop their own nuclear weapons.

Thirdly, the No First Use policy can help to build trust between the US and other countries. If the US has a policy of not using nuclear weapons first, then other countries are more likely to trust the US and to feel like they can work with the US to resolve conflicts.

There are also a few key arguments against the No First Use policy. Firstly, it can make the US appear weak. If the US has a policy of not using nuclear weapons first, then other countries may see the US as being afraid to use them. This could make the US appear weak and could make other countries less likely to take the US seriously.

Secondly, the No First Use policy could make it more difficult for the US to deter other countries from using nuclear weapons. If the US has a policy of not using nuclear weapons first, then other countries may feel like they can use nuclear weapons without the fear of retaliation. This could make it more likely that nuclear weapons would be used in a conflict.

Thirdly, the No First Use policy could make it more difficult for the US to respond to a nuclear attack. If the US has a policy of not using nuclear weapons first, then the US may not be able to respond with nuclear weapons if another country attacks with nuclear weapons. This could put the US at a disadvantage in a nuclear conflict.

The debate over the No First Use policy is complex. There are a lot of factors to consider. What do you think? Should the US have a No First Use policy?