|
| Thread: Nuclear Weapons |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
posted May 02, 2005 07:51 PM |
|
Edited By: Conan on 2 May 2005
|
Nuclear Weapons
Hi,
I have been reading on the US cracking down on nuclear weapons everywhere, and I have some questions for the more knowledgeable members here:
1 - Why is it the US can tell others to stop making bombs when they carry the most nuclear weapons in the world? How is it they condemn North Korea and don't get rid of their own weapons?
2 - The UN treaty of 1970: The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, was put in place to diminish the nuclear weapons world wide yet the US has rejected a ban on nuclear tests, cancelled the anti-ballistic missile treaty and is even toying with building new types of nuclear weapons.
3 - The US invades Iraq because they are hiding nuclear weapons. Yet the US openly have some... why is it no one invades the US on the same grounds (army strengh put aside)? How can the US justify having these weapons and why is it the UN not do anything about the WMD's in the US?
I just don't understand how anyone can really try to make a difference by saying "Do as I say, not as I do". Why is is ok for the US?
Sources:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/05/02/nuclear-treaty050502.html
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted May 02, 2005 08:50 PM |
|
|
Unfortunately, somebody has to be the Bad Cop
The United States uses the threat and build-up of their nuclear arsenal as a deterrent (see Cold War) without the intent of usage. As the self-appointed 'Policemen of Today's World', the United States believes that nuclear technology does not belong in the hands of other countries who have the potential to use it to build and use nuclear weapons.
Basically, the United States believes it is morally and technologically superior to the less-developed countries, and does not want them to get their hands on nuclear technology because they may actually intend to use it...or even worse, sell it to someone else with less morals.
Is the United States justified? Maybe
Is this hypocritical? Of course
As an American citizen, do I feel safer knowing that other countries are being deprived nuclear programs with the propensity to build weapons? Yes
As a Canadian citizen, should I wake up every morning and thank my lucky stars that I live next to the United States, who has a nuclear arsenal but would never use it on me, even though I continually criticize the United States for its actions? Absolutely 
As for invading other countries under the assumption that they have nuclear weapons...well...that's another story. I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens when that assumption is incorrect (see Operation Iraqi Freedom).
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 09:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The United States uses the threat and build-up of their nuclear arsenal [...] without the intent of usage.
Are you kidding me?
Quote:
As the self-appointed 'Policemen of Today's World', the United States believes that nuclear technology does not belong in the hands of other countries who have the potential to use it to build and use nuclear weapons.
The US have the potential to use it to build and use nuclear weapons.
Quote:
Basically, the United States believes it is morally and technologically superior to the less-developed countries
that is a point of view highly debatable. It greatly depends on who's side you wish to take. Muslims might see the US as not morally superior. So who is right? Shouldn't the US show good faith? Maybe then would the others follow?
Quote:
As an American citizen, do I feel safer knowing that other countries are being deprived nuclear programs with the propensity to build weapons? Yes
Fear is never a good motivation.
Quote:
As a Canadian citizen, should I wake up every morning and thank my lucky stars that I live next to the United States, who has a nuclear arsenal but would never use it on me, even though I continually criticize the United States for its actions? Absolutely
Uhhhh... please refrain from putting words in my mouth. The issue is not US against Canada. I do not criticize; I ask questions hence my first paragraph of my opening post.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
posted May 02, 2005 09:28 PM |
|
|
Great post, as always, Khayman!
Quote:
The United States uses the threat and build-up of their nuclear arsenal as a deterrent (see Cold War) without the intent of usage.
Actually, this is the argument North Korea uses to justify its nuclear programs as well. They only need them as a deterrent, to make sure that if the US decides to invade them, they will be able to make the American pay a high price. Which, of course, no American president would be willing to, without solid baccking in the American population. And can such backing be given today, considering the rather uncomfortable events in Iraq? And with Vietnam in fresh memory?
Who knows?
Anyway, back to North Korea. How much of a threat to the US and her allies is this country?
From the facts I have seen, North Korea isn't a threat at all.
Sure, they can possibly gain the capability of launching missiles at South Korea (this they most probably have already, considering the short distance between the two countries) or Japan, or even the US. But why would they want to do that? What would it accomplish?
If North Korea launched a nuclear missile at South Korea, Japan, the US or any other nation, they would most likely be stamped out like you would stamp out a mosquito that's been bugging you. I.e., without effort.
North Korea, by aggression against other states, would simply be bombed to rubble, invaded, and occupied/reunited with South Korea.
So, again, why would they want to be the aggressor?
It's not as if North Korea is Iraq; a country who without consequense could launch a nuclear attack against one of its neighbours (in the case of Iraq, this neighbour would be Iran). This is one of the reasons why I don't see anything wrong in the North Koreans aquiring a nuclear capability.
Another reason why I don't mind this, is that I have hopes that a North Korean success in creating an atomic bomb will result in them wanting more ("Much craves more", to use a good Norwegian proverb). And to create more atomic bombs, they would need to spend resources. These rescources would need to come from somewhere. And since North Korea doesn't exactly overflow with riches, to put it mildly, the population would suffer.
Now, why would this be a good thing?
All I have to say to that, is: Remember the Soviet Union. Most likely, the primary reason why there is no longer a Soviet Union, is that the US and the West unified their rescourses in the arms race against the Soviets.
It is, in short, my rather naïve hope that an armament process in North Korea would lead to so increased a miscontent in the North Korean people, that they would revolt, and thus end the horrors of the current regime, but more peacefully than if an outside force had invaded. 
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 09:45 PM |
|
|
Khayman wrote:Quote:
The United States uses the threat and build-up of their nuclear arsenal [...] without the intent of usage.
Conan responded:Quote:
Are you kidding me?
No, I am not kidding you. I believe that after the United States witnessed the death & destruction of the atomic bomb by using it on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States will never again use a weapon of such magnitude unless faced with extinction. The people of the United States will not allow this, even if the United States government believes otherwise.
In the real world, unfortunately, fear is sometimes the only deterrent. I don't believe that "Hey, Mr. Milosevic, if you cease exterminating those Bosnian Muslims, we'll give you some more power, land, and candy" would have been considered appropriate motivation.
Conan, as for the Canadian comment, I just had to slip it in there. (Please note the winking smiley face.) As a matter of fact I love Canada and Canadians! I thank my lucky stars everyday for the Great White North, or else I would have never been able to enjoy The Guess Who, Moosehead Beer, and Wayne Gretzky! Viva la Canada!
As I titled my last post, somebody has to play bad cop. Fortunately (or unfortunately), right now the United States has taken on the responsibility of that role.
Now, I must read Terje's post...
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 09:51 PM |
|
|
Oh Terje.
Your argument about North-Korea starving for ressources would lead to a downfall like the one we saw in USSR, is simply wrong. Or rather your assumption about the North-Korean public rising up.
As it look today, you have one of the largest starvation disaster happening right now in North-Korea, they are about as piss poor as you can get. When USSR fell, it wasnt starving people that led the revolution, it was rather information about how other people in the world lived. A thing the communist party in USSR actively used as a measure of how good they where living. (Yes, stupid, look at those people at the other side of the wall, they have 2 TV`s and cars that works, you have alot more material things than them).
In North-Korea the general population have absolutely no clue as to how other people live. This is the major reason why your argument unfortunately is wrong.
Khayman, let me ask you one question.
"Which country is the only one who have ever used the nuclear bomb in aggression?"
The reason why the US is so hell bent on non-proliferation is not that other countries might wanna use the bomb aggressively. Rather it is a great deterent against other countries to invade.
Let me give you an example. Iraq: No A-Bomb = Invasion.
Iran: A-Bomb = No invasion.
Why do you think I was astonished that people actually bought the propaganda spread by Bush junior before his invasion of Iraq. If they had the weapons, he wouldnt have dared to invade.
Regards
Defreni
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 09:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh Terje.
Your argument about North-Korea starving for ressources would lead to a downfall like the one we saw in USSR, is simply wrong. Or rather your assumption about the North-Korean public rising up.
As it look today, you have one of the largest starvation disaster happening right now in North-Korea, they are about as piss poor as you can get. When USSR fell, it wasnt starving people that led the revolution, it was rather information about how other people in the world lived. A thing the communist party in USSR actively used as a measure of how good they where living. (Yes, stupid, look at those people at the other side of the wall, they have 2 TV`s and cars that works, you have alot more material things than them).
In North-Korea the general population have absolutely no clue as to how other people live. This is the major reason why your argument unfortunately is wrong.
Like I said, it is a naïve hope I harbour. Nothing more...
Thanks for your additional information, as always.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 09:56 PM |
|
|
Defreni asked:Quote:
Khayman, let me ask you one question.
"Which country is the only one who have ever used the nuclear bomb in aggression?"
Hi Defreni!
Please refer to my response to Conan. I failed to make a note of this in my initial post. Yes, you are correct, the United States is the only country to have used a weapon of such destruction.
Regards
Khayman
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 09:59 PM |
|
|
so basically, do as I say, not as I do.
The US did it, and will make sure no one does it ever again?
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 10:04 PM |
|
|
Exactly. You can look it as pure hypocrisy or as learning from your mistakes. That's what I believe.
EDIT: Forgot how to spell hypocrisy
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Conan
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 10:05 PM |
|
|
the problem is that they are forcing others to learn from the US' mistakes.
If they would do that with pollution, it would be much better.
____________
Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service.... us. - Star Trek TNG
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted May 02, 2005 10:07 PM |
|
|
The wise learn from their own mistakes.
The cunning learn from other people's mistakes.
Go figure.
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2005 07:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Please refer to my response to Conan. I failed to make a note of this in my initial post. Yes, you are correct, the United States is the only country to have used a weapon of such destruction.
Regards
Khayman
Aloha Kayman.
Yes I didnt see your post to Conan. But it was a rethorical question, used to back up my argumentation concerning why the US, doesnt want other countries with nucular (Sorry, couldnt help myself) weapon.
An argumentation you skip completely, and instead just repeat the official stance.
But Ill grant you, that you dont try to make it sound like its not hypocrisy.
But I will add even more weight to my argument, by pointing to theexample of India and Pakistan. After 1998 they have been alot more political will to stop the escalation of conflicts in Kashmir. My claim is that this is mostly because of the proliferation of nuclear weapons to both India and Pakistan.
Regards
Defreni
PS: Regarding the argument Bush use against proliferation, that other countries are more likely to supply WMD to terrorist. Pakistan has supplied North-Korea with the means to build A-bombs. They have a piss poor human rights track record, and they are not democratic.
Wonder out loud why Pakistan is not in imminent danger of being invaded, or at least trade embargoed.
Oh, thats right, they are allies to the US.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted May 03, 2005 12:45 PM |
|
|
I agree with you Conan. America is the epitomy of hypocracy, but I also see some truth in what Khayman says.
It's like;
In Australia, guns are illegal, yet policemen have guns.
Surprisingly, it's America that this is not so, and that trigger happy bob and his uncle can go buy a gun, which makes it a bit more even with the policeman, and is more likely to attack. That's rather than bringing a knife to a gunfight, or in the world outside of my example, bringing a gun to a Intercontinental Satellite Controlled Neuclear Missile fight.
Although, attacking North Korea for having Nukes is like our analogic policeman shooting a man for having a gun.
Just doesn't seem right.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 03, 2005 02:18 PM |
|
|
Do the US have the needed legitimacy to act like a world cop? Who gave them that right? Should all other countries in the world be submitted under the will/infinite wisdom of one single most powerful nation?
Now, this doesnt seem to me too idealistic and I truly hope there is a better way towards a new world order than supremacy and power of one nation over all others, while at the same time ignoring legitimate international organizations.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted May 03, 2005 03:04 PM |
|
|
Well, fortunately, we long since got rid of all of our nuclear weapons and replaced them with New Cue Lar weapons.
I can only assume so, since that's all I hear talked about on Fox News.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Wiseman
Known Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2005 07:34 PM |
|
|
Did they mention Foy Ledge.
____________
Truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted May 03, 2005 07:38 PM |
|
|
Yeah, I had to go to the Lie Berry last Feb you airy to find out what it meant.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted May 04, 2005 06:52 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 4 May 2005
|
Hmm..
~North Korea is a non-issue because China has come to the diplomat's table with Russia, Japan and the U.S.. If China felt inclined, it could envelope all of North Korea and fully integrate it into their own country. The problem is that China does not like North Korea in a strange way. They think of North Koreans as second-class people much in the way a rich person looks down upon a homeless person. The fate of North Korea will be decided by China and no one else. The North Korean's only bargaining chip is its very limited arsenal of nuclear weapons. After looking into this quite thoroughly, I believe they would drop a nuke on South Korea not to invade but try and draw the U.S. into another unfavorable conflict in that region of the world. The American people would not support another war on the Korean peninsula. In addition to this, China cannot allow a U.S. ally to border its tightly held communist-ran country.
At this time, the world's best option to deal with a nuclear-capable North Korea is to bring its people into the information age. This could include smuggling the means to access the internet into the country somehow. Another idea would be to give them access to other forms of communication such as radios, t.v.s, phone lines, etc. As Defreni said, and I agree, the North Korean people are at the bottom of the barrel. They must liberate themselves. But in order to liberate themselves, they must find a means to communicate with each other and the rest of the world. This is the key; not sanctions; not invasion; and not gaining access to nuclear international bargaining chips. Liberation and communication must go hand-in-hand.
~Regarding Pakistan/India, I disagree that we(U.S.) are allies with Pakistan. We are allies with President Musharrif. And he isn't even a true president. He gained power through a coup de etat. Because of this, his own people despise him with great distrust. Many Americans don't realize this. Not if, but when he is assassinated by his own people, the U.S. will lose all ties with Pakistan. Their relationship with India is none of our business. India is the world's largest democracy and can handle itself quite well without the help of the U.S.
~Regarding the use of nuclear weapons, I have much to say and little time. Most people in the world believe that nuclear weapons are being used as a deterrent but I highly disagree. To suggest that nuclear proliferation somehow has stopped the historic means of conventional warfare is a great miscalculation. Indeed many countries have nuclear weapons and I believe this is currently a safeguard for sovereign existence. No new countries are being made from those who wield nuclear weapons. But there is also another side to having a nuclear weapon. Having them means the world now considers you a threat. Even if you were to use them in defense of your country so as to prevent 'extinction' as Khayman mentioned, you must be prepared to face the global opinion/judgment of how it happened. Your country would immediately be put on trial by the rest of the world for fear you might use them on someone else. That is why you can't simply use them if you have them. No country is all powerful. If the Germans can be defeated by the rest of the world, so could America. It would only take the rest of the world to realize the danger of having their own country being hit by a nuclear weapon to compel them to act in self-preservation. Through all of this, conventional warfare shall continue and the world will by and large be held accountable for their behavior in such wars. Many wars are being fought today most of which are under the auspices of national defense. Even President Bush uses this false pretense when promoting his agenda. He claims that we are "fighting abroad so that we don't have to face the enemy here at home". It would seem that the rest of the world would agree or simply not care because the U.S. is not being attacked on any significant scale by any sovereign entity. Covert operations are more to keep the country's monetary support than to actually be defined by whatever they are saying. (i.e. rescue of this/that person, return of this/that national artifact, patrol this/that contested region)
As a human being I recognize that there is a side to all humans that involves the act of war. In any country anywhere in the world, there will always be a segment of its population who actively seek to enter into warfare whether it be by open or discrete means. If we are to continue on a path of peace we must always be on the lookout for those who would seek to gain control of the very power which my country's Declaration of Independence speaks of. That is to say, whether you are an American, a Norwegian, a Russian, or any other country, you as an individual human being have the right and responsibility to overthrow your government by any means necessary if they are proven to be corrupt and/or inhumane. We are all on this planet together. We can only stop the madness of war if we work together for a peaceful end to the philosophy of the power-craving evils that exist today.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted May 06, 2005 03:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It would only take the rest of the world to realize the danger of having their own country being hit by a nuclear weapon to compel them to act in self-preservation.
Hasnt this danger been hanging in the air say... during the past 50 years? Americans, especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis, were living under that pressure; Europeans, as well, depending on the warming-cooling relations with the Soviets. And yet no one "compeled to act in self-preservation".
Ironically as it sounds, the availability of nuclear potentials enabled that self-preservation, because the self-preservation of one nation depended directly from the preservation of the other competeing nation. This way both superpowers kept each other on guard and hadnt there been the nukes, who knows what would have happened if the conflict errupted in an all out conventional war.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
| |
|
|
