Should a country tell another what to do?

[Sam]

I hate communists, that why I risked my life to come here. I hate nuclear weapons, regardless of the origins, USA, France, Russia, etc...

I strongly believe that every country should be capable of defending itself from invaders, bullies.

It irritates me each time "The Nuclear Weapons Owing Countries" (TNWOC) protest, threaten, pressure others from trying to do exactly the same thing, under the pretext of peace, humanity, and all those BSs.

If the TNWOC are truly sincere, why don't they eliminate ALL theirs first, before preaching. Practice what one preaches might not be effective, but at least it's dignified.

I know, this is the biggest can of worms ever. May be I should have opened a smaller one. Like pollution, preservation of natural resources.

 

[TromboneAl]

I agree, and often wonder why this isn't discussed in the media.

 

[MasterBlaster]

Well the way I see it, North Korea could have nuclear weapons to deter an attack...

However,

They sell anything for hard cash, drugs, conterfeit currency, and other contraband. What's to stop them selling a nuke (or three) to terrorists that have every intention of detonating them in the US ? From their point of view they would be getting cash and would be punishing their enemy.

 

[MasterBlaster]

Taking the nuclear weapons for everybody theme further.

I think you should be able to purchase these things (nukes) at Wal-Mart. Shouldn't you have a couple of them in your garage - just in case ? After all nuclear weapons don't kill people... people kill people.

 

[Zathras]

I think you should be able to purchase these things (nukes) at Wal-Mart. Shouldn't you have a couple of them in your garage - just in case ? After all nuclear weapons don't kill people... people kill people.

Absolutely, after all it is a constitutional right (2nd amendment)!!

On a serious note. I agree, all countries should destroy their nuclear stockpiles.

However, I also think the world should watch for and try to detect any country or organization trying to develope nuclear weapons. If discovered the leader of the country or organization should be hunted down and brought up on charges against humanity (none of this sanctions garbage, it just doesn't work)

 

[modhatter]

We have no one but ourselves to blame for this problem.

 

[retire@40]

...It irritates me each time "The Nuclear Weapons Owing Countries" (TNWOC) protest, threaten, pressure others from trying to do exactly the same thing, under the pretext of peace, humanity, and all those BSs....If the TNWOC are truly sincere, why don't they eliminate ALL theirs first, before preaching. Practice what one preaches might not be effective, but at least it's dignified.

Because we don't live in a theoretical world.

If you like living in this country and in the civilized world as we know it, then be glad we have the current balance of power.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Because we don't live in a theoretical world.

If you like living in this country and in the civilized world as we know it, then be glad we have the current balance of power.

Talk softly and carry a big stick.

JG

 

[Sam]

If you like living in this country and in the civilized world as we know it, then be glad we have the current balance of power.

We have a balance of power? And what does it have anything to do with whether "you like living in this country and in the civilized world"?

 

[retire@40]

We have a balance of power? And what does it have anything to do with whether "you like living in this country and in the civilized world"?

Yes, there exists a balance of power in the world and countries like NK and Iran are trying to shift it to give themselves more weight (and by definition giving us less weight).

If the US doesn't remain as the heavyweight in the current balance of power structure, we stand a very good chance of losing our current way of life and becoming more like the countries and organizations that are trying to do the shifting.

If you think that would be a good thing, then your stance is correct. I happen to believe it would suck to live under a system like the opposing force would want us to live under, hence my belief that we should try to maintain the current balance of power in the world.

 

[Sam]

What's to stop them selling a nuke (or three) to terrorists that have every intention of detonating them in the US ? From their point of view they would be getting cash and would be punishing their enemy.

I'm pretty sure Israel posseses nuclear weapons. I'm also pretty sure that they were only able to do so with help from other countries. Is there a difference between selling and helping to make nuke?

What is your definition of a terrorists? Someone who hates the USA, someone who detonates a nuclear device on US soil, or both?

They sell anything for hard cash, drugs, conterfeit currency, and other contraband.

What else beside hard cash would anyone sell anything for? Did not all the powerful countries at one time or another also sell drugs, weapons, and other contraband?



No, I'm not saying that because the US and other countries did all those things in the past mean that North Korea or Iran should be encouraged to do the same thing. Equality is a myth, a forbiden fruit, accessible to only the ones in power.

What I'm saying is to cut the BSs. Stop hiding behind those nice, compassionate speeches. Go out there and tell them not to do it, beg them if neccessary, bribe them if effective, and at the last resort kill them if they don't listen. Just stop pretending to be the nice guy.

 

[Sam]

Yes, there exists a balance of power in the world and countries like NK and Iran are trying to shift it to give themselves more weight (and by definition giving us less weight).

If the US doesn't remain as the heavyweight in the current balance of power structure, we stand a very good chance of losing our current way of life and becoming more like the countries and organizations that are trying to do the shifting.

If you think that would be a good thing, then your stance is correct. I happen to believe it would suck to live under a system like the opposing force would want us to live under, hence my belief that we should try to maintain the current balance of power in the world.

The USA is most powerful state, and I'm glad to be a part of it.

But that's not a "balance of power". The only time there was a balance of power in recent history is right after WW II.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

No, I'm not saying that because the US and other countries did all those things in the past mean that North Korea or Iran should be encouraged to do the same thing. Equality is a myth, a forbiden fruit, accessible to only the ones in power.

What I'm saying is to cut the BSs. Stop hiding behind those nice, compassionate speeches. Go out there and tell them not to do it, beg them if neccessary, bribe them if effective, and at the last resort kill them if they don't listen. Just stop pretending to be the nice guy.

Goldang Sam! Pretty good. Keep that up and you might restore my faith
in humanity. There are some very sharp people here. Mainly why I returned.

JG

 

[ADJ]

If the US doesn't remain as the heavyweight in the current balance of power structure, we stand a very good chance of losing our current way of life and becoming more like the countries and organizations that are trying to do the shifting.

Do you care to elaborate? What do you mean by losing our way of life. Do you mean it in the economic sense? If that's the case, I would like to point out that there are several peace loving countries in the world that have a better standard of living than the US and they do not assume the "bully" of the world role. In fact, many of them fear the US and perceive the US to be a dangerous force given its history of domination and imposing its will to protect its so called way of life.

 

[JohnEyles]

If the US doesn't remain as the heavyweight in the current balance of power structure, we stand a very good chance of ... becoming more like the countries ... that are trying to do the shifting.

Yeah, the kind of countries that unilaterally invade other countries.
Oh, wait, never mind ...

 

[samclem]

The USA is most powerful state, and I'm glad to be a part of it.

But that's not a "balance of power". The only time there was a balance of power in recent history is right after WW II.

Preposterous. Right after WW II there was only one significant world power: The US. We were the only nation with atomic weapons. We were the only nation with a robust economy still standing. We were the only nation capable of projecting conventional military power, en masse, anywhere in the world. There has never been a case in history where any nation has enjoyed such an advantage over its neighbors. The very fact that the US did NOT utilize this advantage to dominate and enslave other nations and to take whatever we wanted goes a long way toward showing why possession of nuclear weapons by some nations is less of a threat than by other nations. I don't think your moral equivalence argument will stand up to reason. If you want to go down that road, I'd recommend you pick a more sympathetic client than North Korea.

 

[Sam]

Preposterous. Right after WW II there was only one significant world power: The US. We were the only nation with atomic weapons.

samclem, you're correct. I miswrote. I should have said after WW II and not right after WW II. I have the feeling you knew that was an honest mistake, but you choose to attack. So be it.

We were the only nation capable of projecting conventional military power, en masse, anywhere in the world. There has never been a case in history where any nation has enjoyed such an advantage over its neighbors. The very fact that the US did NOT utilize this advantage to dominate and enslave other nations and to take whatever we wanted goes a long way toward showing why possession of nuclear weapons by some nations is less of a threat than by other nations.

My standard and moral are without a doubt different from yours. In my standard, a moral person does not brag about the bad, horrible, inhumane acts he could have done when he had the chance. A moral person is one to strive to look for opportunity to help others, to better himself. Everyone, every country, at one time or another, gets a chance to destroy, to annihilate another. But I don't hear moral people bragging about it. You're the exception.

I don't think your moral equivalence argument will stand up to reason. If you want to go down that road, I'd recommend you pick a more sympathetic client than North Korea.

Don't put words in my mouth, samclem. It's low, degenerative, even by your standards. When did I say North Korea was my client? If you have trouble understanding simple english, may be you should learn first to read, then to understand.

Regards not.

 

[Craig]

Thank you, samclem, for bringing some historical reality and logic to the discussion.

Sam, I agree with your proposition that it is awkward how members of the nuclear club don't want to allow new members. However, the logic is clear ... there are some countries who make it clear they are run by nutcases who will indeed use nuclear weapons or sell them readily. Iran and North Korea are the current examples.

Likely, this will all come to a head in the next decade, and I'm not optimistic. As much as some people on this board appear to hate the U.S. (and especially GW), they might want to realistically consider what the world will look like with a nuclear Iran and NK. 'Course, when the explosion literally occurs, above ground and killing real human beings, I'm sure GW, the right wing, Republicans, etc. will be blamed, and it will be cause for more pacifist political football in the future ... :

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Thank you, samclem, for bringing some historical reality and logic to the discussion.

Sam, I agree with your proposition that it is awkward how members of the nuclear club don't want to allow new members. However, the logic is clear ... there are some countries who make it clear they are run by nutcases who will indeed use nuclear weapons or sell them readily. Iran and North Korea are the current examples.

Likely, this will all come to a head in the next decade, and I'm not optimistic. As much as some people on this board appear to hate the U.S. (and especially GW), they might want to realistically consider what the world will look like with a nuclear Iran and NK. 'Course, when the explosion literally occurs, above ground and killing real human beings, I'm sure GW, the right wing, Republicans, etc. will be blamed, and it will be cause for more pacifist political football in the future ... :

Excellent excellent post Charles. I love this board. Some deep thinkers here for sure.

I always had trouble with the "We have nukes but you (and you and you)
can't because you are not to be trusted, etc" argument. Without
commenting on the current troubles, the genie is out of the bottle
weapon-wise. I believe these kinds of sticky problems will only increase
over time. Eventually, as more WMDs are acquired, somebody will
use them. All we can hope to do is delay the
inevitable. Hopefully, Armageddon is a ways off yet.

JG

 

[samclem]

But I don't hear moral people bragging about it. You're the exception.

Thanks for the bouquet! I didn't expect to find it among the tangled briars.

What I'm saying is to cut the BSs. Stop hiding behind those nice, compassionate speeches. Go out there and tell them not to do it, beg them if neccessary, bribe them if effective, and at the last resort kill them if they don't listen. Just stop pretending to be the nice guy.

Yes, mostly. Nations are independent agents, they act out of self interest. When they sign internatonal agreements, it is not out of an altruistic sense of "morality," but a calculation that signing the agreement advances their self interests. The self-interests can be broad and generally perceived as advancing the common good (e.g. agreements to prevent pollution of the "commons," prevent piracy, limit the scope of acceptabe conduct in military conflicts, etc). You've named some common tools used by nations to achieve their aims. "Pretending to be the nice guy" is an aspect of diplomacy/public diplomacy, which is another tool in a nation's kit bag. It's not really "pretending," it is just marketing and convincing. I think most would agree that this is preferable to military action, when it works.

 

[saluki9]

I'm pretty sure Israel posseses nuclear weapons. I'm also pretty sure that they were only able to do so with help from other countries. Is there a difference between selling and helping to make nuke?

1. I can't think of another country that needs nukes MORE than Israel (We've got your 72 virgins right here Abdul!)

2. The US did not sell them to Israel or provide the technology. You may not have noticed but there have so far been 45 nobel laureates in Physics who are Jewish along with many of the scientists who created the first nuclear weapon.

3. Powerful countries have always told those less powerful what to do. Are you happier that NK has nukes now? Personally I feel very bad for their citizens because I think that their life is only going to get harder because of this. China is going to back the sanctions because they will do anything to keep Japan from building their own stockpile.

 

[MasterBlaster]

2. The US did not sell them to Israel or provide the technology.

What makes you so sure than the US did not supply Israel with nuclear technology ?

 

[Sam]

"Pretending to be the nice guy" is an aspect of diplomacy/public diplomacy, which is another tool in a nation's kit bag. It's not really "pretending," it is just marketing and convincing. I think most would agree that this is preferable to military action, when it works.

I agree with you 100% here. But I got tired of hearing those empty, meaningless pretention.

 

[Nords]

What makes you so sure than the US did not supply Israel with nuclear technology ?

Hmm, we'll have to check with Jonathon Pollard.

I don't care whether a country develops its own nuclear weapon technology. However I don't mind a bit cutting off my taxes our foreign aid to countries who are whining about their poverty struggles while they're building bigger centrifuges.

Of course paying nuclear greenmail to DPRK is still cheaper than the military solution. Wait a minute, would we be sending inspection teams there to look for weapons of mass destruction?

 

[JohnEyles]

some people on this board appear to hate the U.S. (and especially GW)

Uh-huh, equating these two things, are we ? I hate GW precisely because I love the
US and know his adminstration is probably the worst thing to happen to this country
since the War Between The States (in seems a little self-centered to call our civil war
THE Civil War).

they might want to realistically consider what the world will look like with a nuclear Iran and NK... I'm sure GW, the right wing, Republicans, etc. will be blamed

Too bad GW didn't seriously consider what the world would look like with a nuclear
Iran and NK and *DO* something about it (and yes, he should be blamed). Instead,
he spent our military and political capital invading Iraq. By political capital, I mean
both domestically and internationally - GW has lost his credibility at home and abroad
and can not prosecute another war. Less you think I'm a pacifist, I think military
action against NK may have been a very good idea, but it's too late now - it's beyond
the point of bombing their enrichment facilities etc, they now probably have a handful
or nukes and who knows where they are and where they're going.