The Nuclear Club, a question for all candidates.

This is a two part question for all candidates....


(1) Do you believe that the United States has the moral and legal authority to attempt to stop countries from developing nuclear weapons?

(2) What place does the United States have in the affairs of other sovereign nations around the globe?

Originally posted by whatukno
This is a two part question for all candidates....

(1) Do you believe that the United States has the moral and legal authority to attempt to stop countries from developing nuclear weapons?

I believe that unless the country has specific intention to use said nuclear weapons on the Untied States or our allies, it is not right for us to attempt to stop any country from developing a nuclear deterrent.

(2) What place does the United States have in the affairs of other sovereign nations around the globe?

The United States should not have any place in the affairs of other nations unless that nation is a direct threat to our national security. A nation itself should be allowed to conduct its own affairs without any pressure from the US. We as a country need to recognize the rights of other cultures that may be contradictory to our own and should not meddle in places we don't belong just because we do not agree with the way things are run in another country is no reason for us to stick our nose where it does not belong.

(1) Do you believe that the United States has the moral and legal authority to attempt to stop countries from developing nuclear weapons?

The United States has the legal authority to stop other countries from getting nuclear weapons when they are going to say that they want to use them on us or our allies. WE must protect our country from the threat of nuclear war because lots of people hate us and they would LOVE to use a nuclear weapon on us rather immediately, I might add.

(2) What place does the United States have in the affairs of other sovereign nations around the globe?

That's not the United States job, that's the CIA's job. They do the dirty work and they run our foreign policy for the most part. They are the ones that run the secret wars. They force the President to sign the bills that he knows nothing about. We need to constrain the CIA. Other then that, the USA needs to be able to manipulate world affairs around sovereign nations to protect its own interests in that area-- not to topple other governments-- or other regimes.

posted by whatukno

This is a two part question for all candidates . .
(1) Do you believe that the United States has the moral and legal authority to attempt to stop countries from developing nuclear weapons?
(2) What place does the United States have in the affairs of other sovereign nations around the globe?

1) I believe that unless the country has specific intention to use said nuclear weapons on the Untied States or our allies, it is not right for us to attempt to stop any country from developing a nuclear deterrent.

2) The United States should not have any place in the affairs of other nations unless that nation is a direct threat to our national security. A nation itself should be allowed to conduct its own affairs without any pressure from the US. We as a country need to recognize the rights of other cultures that may be contradictory to our own and should not meddle in places we don't belong just because we do not agree with the way things are run in another country is no reason for us to stick our nose where it does not belong. [Edited by Don W]

1) No. Not unilaterally. Of course, if we learn any country has a bomb on the way here, we are permitted to defend ourselves in any rational way. Not like a Texas Mad Dog as B43 would propose.

If we believe the proliferation of nuclear weapons poses a danger to us and to everyone, then we need to develop co-operative measures through the existing United Nations agencies to half the spread of such WMDs. I am under the impression the US and USSR - and its successor states - reduced the number of atomic bombs from 30,000+ each to 7,000+ each since 1991. The UK (1,500), France (750) and China (2,000) make up the original possessors of nuclear weapons. Numbers in parenthesis are from my memory of other’s estimates.


The US has surreptitiously and probably in violation of our laws as well as international treaties, furnished Israel with enough fissionable material to make 300 nuclear bombs. India (50) recently received accolades from Bush43 for its violations of the NPT. So much for invoking the “law.” Because of Kashmir’s lushness, Pakistan felt it needed to duplicate India and most likely has a similar number of nuclear weapons. The fear today is Pakistani PM Musarif will lose the coming election and al Qaeda will gain control of Pakistan’s (50) nuclear weapons. Finally, we have blundered along since 2001 and let North Korea obtain enough material to make 2-10 atom bombs. The talks “about” NK seem to be back on track, but the US has already let the genie out of the bottle there. Thanks, B43.

Which leaves us to theorize about Iran. Any rational Iranian would want atomic bombs to protect it from unpredictable and unilateral American assaults. Borders are meaningless, boasts our B43. Our own B43 speaks the same language as their Ahmadinejad. But ours won’t sit with theirs to talk face to face. Hmm?

2) To be completed later.

[edit on 3/1/2007 by donwhite]

posted by whatukno

(2) What place does the United States have in the affairs of other sovereign nations around the globe?

2) The United States should not have any place in the affairs of other nations unless that nation is a direct threat to our national security. A nation itself should be allowed to conduct its own affairs without any pressure from the US. We as a country need to recognize the rights of other cultures that may be contradictory to our own and should not meddle in places we don't belong just because we do not agree with the way things are run in another country is no reason for us to stick our nose where it does not belong. [Edited by Don W]

The people who settled the 13 original colonies did not feel that way, Mr W/U/K. Conceited to an unjustified extent, the authors of the Articles of Confederation - the same men who gave the world the Declaration of Independence - offered Canada the “right” to join the United States of America at their choosing, directly and without any of the steps anticipated for other territories.

In 1805 President Jefferson (wisely, I think) ordered the attack on the Barbary Coast “pirates” which proved successful and gave US commerce free passage in the Mediterranean Sea. Later, when the War of 1812 began, our first campaign was launched across the St. Lawrence to bring Canada into the Union. Dismayed at the refusal of Canucks to join us, we burned York (later Toronto), then the capital of Canada. The Brits then burned W-DC in retaliation.

In the 19th century, the US Marine Corps have invaded sovereign countries in Central and South America and China, more than 20 times. The USMC assisted in the Dole family stealing Hawaii. OK, oversimplified but that was the outcome. In 1905 the US Army fought the Muslim rebels on Mindanao who thought we were there to liberate them from Spanish rule. Wrong!

In 1920-22, we along with the UK, sent about 20,000 soldiers to the nascent USSR to defeat the Communists. We backed the so-called White Russians, that is, the discredited old capitalists, clergy and nobility who wanted to continue to dominate the Russian people. The Red Russians won as you can see, but the Russian people lost. The US has invaded Haiti 4 times, and once occupied it from 1918 to 1933. Yet Haiti remians the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Why is that? Haiti won its independence from France and Napolean. We invaded Granada for domestic politcal points. We invaded Panama because Noriega stopped doing our bidding. He now resides in a hole in the ground in Maimi. A constant reminder to our other lackeys.

There is not a 20 years period in American history since 1789 when we did not unilaterally, and without provocation - other than advancing our commercial interests - invaded dozens of countries. That’s the American Empire, American style. We use local lackey’s to do our bidding. Say hello Middle East.

[edit on 3/1/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by whatukno
(1) Do you believe that the United States has the moral and legal authority to attempt to stop countries from developing nuclear weapons?

No. None whatsoever. Leading by example means just that, if we have them, other people should be allowed to have them. If we don't want other people to have them, we need to get rid of ours, because as long as we have them other countries can feel threatened by them, and will desire to obtain their own.

(2) What place does the United States have in the affairs of other sovereign nations around the globe?

If you lead by example, you set the standard. The United States should, by virtue of its existence, its progression and democracy be a beacon to any country that wishes to prosper and move forward. We can help with advice and assistance but we must not abuse that positon. That should be the the only intervention we need. We would not welcome another nation being involved in our internal affairs - so logically we should extend the same courtesy as we expect to others.

Originally posted by whatukno
(1) Do you believe that the United States has the moral and legal authority to attempt to stop countries from developing nuclear weapons?

Either we ban nuclear weapons, so nobody has them or we all have them. We cannot pick or choose who has them anymore.

(2) What place does the United States have in the affairs of other sovereign nations around the globe?

The United States has no right to get involved in other countries internal affairs. How can a nation be sovereign if it is being influenced by outside forces?

Originally posted by whatukno
(1) Do you believe that the United States has the moral and legal authority to attempt to stop countries from developing nuclear weapons?

Absolutely we have a moral imperative to make such an attempt, however not by military action. Our best chance of success is by behaving in a moral & legal manner toward these countries rather than behaving in a threating & hostile manner. I'm of the "Walk softly, but carry a big stick" school of thought on this issue. The current administration's public bellowing and chest beating with our navy is not the way to persuade other government not to develop nukes. It only convinces other countries that they need these weapons.

As for banning nuclear weapons, the Pandora's box has been opened and it is not possible to put back and lock the nuclear genie in the box. We had best just get comfortable with the concept of "mutually assured destruction", because I do not trust other countries enough that I would be willing to put down nuclear weapons. I'm peaceful, not stupid.

(2) What place does the United States have in the affairs of other sovereign nations around the globe?

Our government can't keep its own affairs in order let alone those of other nations. My foreign policy will be based on establishing an America that is at peace with the world and provides for the defense of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil from foreign attack. I will be guided by the principle of non-intervention which avoids entangling alliances, engaging in foreign wars and undertaking ill conceived of imperialist adventures.

[edit on 3-3-2007 by df1]

Originally posted by whatukno
(1) Do you believe that the United States has the moral and legal authority to attempt to stop countries from developing nuclear weapons?

Yes, I do.
It's bad enough so many countries have them as it is, by adding more
countries to that list, the chance of catastrophic nuclear
exchange/detonation rises.

I also believe that the countries with nuclear weapons need to reduce
there numbers by half, and replace existing outdated arsenals with
new, more efficient, safer and cleaner bombs.

Eventually I'd like to see the worlds nuclear arsenal under the control
of an international body that will only use them for peaceful purposes,
like planetary defence (IE Asteroids and such) and scientific test.

(2) What place does the United States have in the affairs of other sovereign nations around the globe?

Apart from preventing more countries from developing nuclear countries,
we should try and create Free countries.
Beyond those, not much.

(1) Do you believe that the United States has the moral and legal authority to attempt to stop countries from developing nuclear weapons?

No I do not. I think the United States needs to focus on military systems that remove the ability to be attacked by planes, missiles and any other means. Once the Nation is so secure with a working (fully working) anti-missile defence system nuclear weapons are less of a worry. But going around and invading nations because of our own moral superiority puts us in a worse situation – it is more likely to create civil descent (in our own nation) and to create terrorism across the world.

If anything, we need to begin to forge an alliance with every Nation upon this planet. It is about time we act as adults and not as children.

(2) What place does the United States have in the affairs of other sovereign nations around the globe?

Simple: We should set down what a nation should be. We should lead the way and show the world what can be done. To those Nations who limit freedoms, we should show the people what they can have. We should be better than the best and be an example that is all.

Originally posted by whatukno
This is a two part question for all candidates....


(1) Do you believe that the United States has the moral and legal authority to attempt to stop countries from developing nuclear weapons?

There's a Jewish proverb that is the original of "the golden rule": Do not do to others that which you would not have done to you.

Do I want others to come in and restrict what America can technologically develop? No. Do I think America should be the sole authority on who can have what devices? No.

(2) What place does the United States have in the affairs of other sovereign nations around the globe?

The same place they have in the affairs of our nation.

We should not do to other nations things that we would not like done to our own nation.

Originally posted by whatukno
(1) Do you believe that the United States has the moral and legal authority to attempt to stop countries from developing nuclear weapons?

How can we have a legal authority outside the jurisdiction of our own country?
As far as an ethical responsibility ...we must lead by example.
(morals have more to do with APPEARING to be right rather than DOING right)

If the countries of the world did not compete or set one another as adversaries...then there would be NO need for weapons of any sort!

(2) What place does the United States have in the affairs of other sovereign nations around the globe?

In the general, routine affairs of other nations?
NONE unless asked.
And then we should assist but not meddle or take over.

Once again, the best thing we can do is to LEAD by EXAMPLE.
We must first put our own affairs in order - here in our own country.

Originally posted by whatukno
This is a two part question for all candidates....


(1) Do you believe that the United States has the moral and legal authority to attempt to stop countries from developing nuclear weapons?

(2) What place does the United States have in the affairs of other sovereign nations around the globe?

1. Yes. Not only does our moral and legal authority give us the right to stop other countries from going nuclear, it also gives us the right to scale back our efforts in the same area. We must work to make the world a safer place, even if it means admitting that our own proliferation was wrong and needs to be undone.

2. We have a place in those affairs when they involve us both directly and indirectly. I believe we must be prudent and aware of the affairs in the world and anticipate how they may or will affect us and address them accordingly. This does not include pre-emptive military action!

I believe the United States has an obligation to its people to work against nuclear proliferation, but this must be done in a fair, responsible manner.

I believe that a moral highground often does not exist in international affairs- we do not have a "moral right" to disarm anyone, but they do not have any "moral right" to wield such weapons against their neighbors- it is a simple matter two opposing forces, and since these forces are so great that nobody can win, Byrd is correct that the Golden Rule is wisely applied.

We should undertake our efforts against proliferation by peaceful, multi-lateral means. We must also be strong however. Some use internationalism as a shield for standing idly by. I do not. I believe internationalism is used to derive the power to win, and if possible to do so without actually having to fight, not to diffuse the blame for stagnation. We must pursue this program aggressively, using every incentive and pressure available to us.


We must work through the UN to establish a binding program of international law which does not allow individual security council members to give a nation a pass, and which does not allow nations to suddenly decide that they no longer wish to obey the law.

We should seek a treaty wherein members of the UN agree to a uniform system of positive incentives, followed by negative incentives of increasing severity which all signatories agree in advance to apply to nations found in violation of the new anti-proliferation law, with lesser penalties applying to signatories who fail to carry out their duty against nations who nuclearize illegally.

The world standing together CAN prevent proliferation without war. The problem is that we have not stood together. We have not made it a priority. Nobody is willing to sanction a nation that they have economic ties to, even if that nation is creating instability that could potentially destroy us all. That is ridiculous.
We need to prevail upon the world that a consistent, impartial system is vital to our children's safety, and seek their agreement that we will compellingly oppose those who violate international law so that there is at least a possiblity of stopping them without war.

Nations who agree to do this with us but then don't also need to be dealt with. If we brought China on board for such a treaty, but they decided to turn a blind eye to a certain nation's violation because they had economic interests there, we should trump that economic interest by placing sanctions on China until such time as they honor their commitment to non-proliferation. I realize that putting that kind of pressure on China could have serious consequences for the United States, but I believe that if we establish our willingness to do it, China will not test us twice, and we need to be prepared to make that sacrifice. Do you want cheap t-shirts, or do you want to never have a nuclear weapon pointed at your kids? Your choice.


I also believe that the United States should raise the possibility of a UN project to build a space-based missile defense system with redundant controls crewed by joint teams from Security Council nations, and giving this system a mandate to destroy any ballistic missile fired by any nation against any other nation, and should subsequently begin a round of missile reductions designed to reduce every nuclear power's stockpile to a level insufficient to saturate the missile defense system. I believe that the existence of such a system is our only hope to succeed in denuclearization.

It gives us the freedom to apply compelling pressure to nuclear states who would not normally be agreeable to disarmament (Israel and North Korea come to mind) and the ability to give assurances of protection that can defuse standoffs like that between India and Pakistan.

In so many words, we have a duty to address this problem, but neither a moral right nor a rational self-interest in doing so violently and unilaterally if we can avoid it.

Originally posted by whatukno
(1) Do you believe that the United States has the moral and legal authority to attempt to stop countries from developing nuclear weapons?

The united states has a moral and ethical reason not to allow others to get nukes since it is the only nation to use nukes and has seen the amount of distruction abd death these weapons can cause
but it has no right to attack a country directly without any proof that they are a threat.

Originally posted by whatukno
(2) What place does the United States have in the affairs of other sovereign nations around the globe?

like all nations the United states is looking out for its people
like other countries the US will form close ties with those that bennif the the country