Why can't we just take a stand against those we don't want to have nukes?

There are many countries that the US feels are incapable of handling the responsibility of having nuclear technology. By that, I mean they feel they would develop nuclear weapons that could be used directly on us by those nations, by theft of the nukes from those nations due to their inability to secure them, or in nations who's governments are unstable and at high risk for a coup.

It only makes sense to think that way, and I agree with it. However, I think everyone capable should have the right to pursue nuclear energy technology. In cases such as Iran, I just don't believe that there intent is strictly for power. So, in situations like this, where we don't believe them, why don't we just say, "Fine, develop nuclear energy technology. But, If we ever detect a nuclear test on your soil, or discover you selling nuclear weapons material we will consider it a direct threat to our nation and will annihilate you. We aren't talking rebuilding a nation afterward either, but leaving the burnt barren lands. No troops needed, just some air launched nukes."

We don't have to keep harassing them and the minute they are proven liars, we end it.

Looking for your opinions on this approach or other alternatives.

The United States has absolutely no authority to impose tyrannical rule over the entire globe. Although we try...

What gives us the power to say who can and who can't have nuclear weapons? Do we get this ability because we have nuclear weapons?

Doesn't that mean that other countries should be entitled to impose their will on us because they have nuclear weapons as well?

I'm with nj2day on this one. It's not our place, at least it shouldn't be, to decide who can and can't do something. Personally I don't think any country including our own should have nuclear weapons, but it's not up to me.

reply to post by Wolf321


Well, this new report -with not so new info- came out today:

The report says the materials for a nuclear bomb exist in hundreds of buildings in dozens of countries.

Professor Bunn says there are currently about 130 research reactors around the world that still use highly enriched uranium for fuel.

"I think they are a quite serious concern because many of these facilities have very minimal security measures," he said. "Some of them are on university campuses and other locations where it is really not plausible that you would ever have the kind of security that in my view is required when you are talking about potential nuclear bomb material."

globalsecurity.org

reply to post by nj2day


The ability to wield such destructive power gives the holder a great responsibility. This includes keeping it out of the hands of those incapable of handling the responsibility.

You wont see the US trying to stop nations from buying the most advanced aircraft, warships, or even space exploration. Only nukes, chemical and bio weapons are the things the US tries to prohibit.

reply to post by Wolf321


There are those who would speculate that we shouldn't have the responsibility.

This matter is really something to be decided by the international community as a whole.. perhaps through the U.N. or another similar entity.

Not for one nation to decide on their own...

Ever wonder why all the nations deemed responsible enough to have these weapons happen to be our allies?

reply to post by nj2day


I don't think that Russia or China could hardly be counted as allies or the US, and Pakistan and India are conditional allies.

As corrupt, mismanaged and incompetent as the UN is and you think they should be handling the nuclear issue?

It seems these days American hypocrisy is so thick you could spread it with a knife.

I don’t think America has the authority to start making bold threats of nuclear annihilation to other countries because it feels threatened . Especially now that the hornets nest is stirred up.

Everyone in administration is up in arms about possible acts of violence against the nation.
Making decisions now would just prove dangerous and counterproductive to the cause.

In any case, America lost its initiative for action on 9/11 everything that follows that will undoubtedly be a series of bad decisions.

I’m not meaning to insult the OP nor imply you are what I am about to mention.
But it seems the ideology that you propose here is typical of those Americans that have learned to become complacent with their liberty.
In the event that our nation trips and falls in the not to distant future and we are set at a level of equal or lesser value than these rouge states like Iran then who will impose authority over us?

Will it be a just cause of action in those situations to subjugate the people of this country to the powers of greater nations?

It is important to realize that America is not on the list of favorites around the world.
Pissing on every ones parade around the world is apparently the all American way.
Lets stop doing it before someone pisses on ours.

[DISCLAIMER] Like I said I’m not counting the OP as those who take liberty for granted.
I was merely speaking in generality.

Would you sleep better knowing that the modern day hitler in iran has nukes? Or the crazy little dictator hugo chavas(sorry for botched spelling)? Or that wack job in north Korea? If any of these nut cases had or has them you can bet good money that they'd use'm.

reply to post by Wolf321


Russia developed their weapons before the idea of nuclear proliferation was invented... and after the wall came down... they were our allies... its only been recently that the relationship has gotten a little rocky...

China and the U.S. have been in talks for a while trying to get friendly with each other...

why are we working off the assumption that the U.N. is incompetent? Is that because of the propaganda campaign put out by the current administration to justify why we shouldn't listen to them when we go off and invade other countries?

Like it or not, the U.N. is the worlds best, and possibly only hope to achieve any sort of peace in the world. It's just unfortunate that the united states has refused to comply with the U.N., and has refused support of other measures that would better all nations of the world (International Criminal Court and Kyoto Accord come immediately to mind).

We have broken agreements we have previously signed (Geneva Conventions), and Flat out refused to acknowledge the borders of soveriegn nations multiple times (Iraq, Liberia, and Pakistan to start)

And for some reason we think we have the gall to throw our hands in the air in protest when Russia moves across the border of Georgia?

The U.S. has become no better than the nations we deem as "evil".




[edit on 19-11-2008 by nj2day]

reply to post by snowen20


I understand that there are many within and without the US that don't think we should warn rouge or hostile nations. I started this thread to suggest an alternative to the back and forth, maybe-we-will-war, dialog over the matter we have had with Iran. I think that if we took a hard initial stance it would better serve us. We then could work with the nations around the potential threat nation on influencing and keeping them in check.

What do you think is the best manner for dealing with such nations?

Originally posted by nj2day

 

Russia developed their weapons before the idea of nuclear proliferation was invented... and after the wall came down... they were our allies... its only been recently that the relationship has gotten a little rocky...

Incorrect. We have never been allies with Russia. We have made allies with former soviet block countries, but not Russia. We, at best, have been civil with them.

China and the U.S. have been in talks for a while trying to get friendly with each other...

We have been having talks with China since Nixon, but that hasn't gotten anywhere. Base upon the continued detected spying and espionage done by China, friendship is far away.

why are we working off the assumption that the U.N. is incompetent? Is that because of the propaganda campaign put out by the current administration to justify why we shouldn't listen to them when we go off and invade other countries?

The UN's lack of action against Saddam Hussein in the 90's is to blame for us ever having the reason to invade in 2003. Not to mention the continued boondoggle over spending and aid money being wasted by the UN.

Like it or not, the U.N. is the worlds best, and possibly only hope to achieve any sort of peace in the world.

The UN has proved to be an even more monumental failure than the League of Nations. It is a far cry from being a hope for anything positive in the world.

We have broken agreements we have previously signed (Geneva Conventions), and Flat out refused to acknowledge the borders of soveriegn nations multiple times (Iraq, Liberia, and Pakistan to start)

Geneva Conventions apply to uniformed fighters of a nation. The debate on what constitute torture is for another forum. We have, however, violated the sovereignty of nations at times.

The only country that have ever used an atomic bomb against another is the U.S. (twice) then by what moral standard do you think U.S. can decide which country is fit to arm itself with nuclear power?. I'd prefer to ban all the nuclear WMD's since it's been proven that no matter how technologically advanced a nation is the threat that destructive nuclear power represents to the world as a whole is inminent and dangerous, let's not forget that due to the various tests of atmospherical nuclear bombs all humanity has been exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, why should we be willing to accept the risk of continuing developing more and more nuclear weapons, the nuclear bomb is something that should've never been invented and it is sad to know that humanity's fate depends on the hope that no one press the button.

This has always been one of those topics that keeps me on the fence.

The nations that have nuke bombs seem to come to the realization of just what they can do, and as a result grow up and decide not to use them. Having that responsibility almost seems to mature the thoughts of the nations leaders. It brings them to the table so they know they won't ever have to use them.

In that scenario I say spread the damn things out like candy.

I also know that nations fall and sometimes crazies get to make the decisions. That's what scares me.

It will only take one psycho with a nuclear arsenal at his disposal to be the end of us all.

I'm still on the fence. Responsibility makes nations grow up and can lead us to a peaceful world for all. Where's the idiot though? It's like finding Waldo and Waldo has a nuclear bomb, maybe lots of nuclear bombs.

We live in interesting times.

[edit on 19-11-2008 by mrwupy]

Originally posted by Wolf321

Originally posted by nj2day

 

Russia developed their weapons before the idea of nuclear proliferation was invented... and after the wall came down... they were our allies... its only been recently that the relationship has gotten a little rocky...

Incorrect. We have never been allies with Russia. We have made allies with former soviet block countries, but not Russia. We, at best, have been civil with them.

Whoa.....A little correction here. In WWII we were absolutely allies with Russia. After Hitler stabbed them in the back big time the United States and Russia became allies and kicked his ass. England helped a bit

We were once allies with Russia.

Im feeling you on the issue dont misunderstand.
I think that the best course of action is the one humans have used for thousands of years. "DIPLOMACY"

I dont know I dont have all the answers unfortunatly.

ring around the rosie politics sucks but it tends to preserve life.

reply to post by mrwupy


Well technically speaking it was the USSR that we were allies with in WWII, not Russia specifically.
The USSR became Russia only recently and we haven't been allies with them in the last 15-19 years that they've existed.

The OP's statements are something I hear all the time when it comes to nuclear weapons in the world abroad. I think, like another poster, that the viewpoint is just hypocritical. Putting aside the obvious fact that America is not the owner of the world and shouldnt be telling anyone what to do, why do so many people think America should be trusted with this power. This country has actually used atomic bombs against another nation. Forget all the hypothetical they might they might not nuke us, this country has actually pressed the button. Not nuclear exactly, but atomic is only a step behind.

Nuclear power, besides the obvious safety concerns, is a viable and practical source of energy. There are countries all over the world that can barely feed their citizens, and its selfish to say that they shouldnt have the same resources as us. The building of a nuclear bomb is not as simple as some may believe, there is a huge difference between nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons. For Iran specifically, even if they started developing nukes now it would take at least ten years, and they would have to get a launching system from another country or take the time to develop one themselves. Its really a non-issue as far as Iran goes, since they would not survive using even one nuclear weapon before being destroyed by other nations.

The more likely root for nuclear weapons to be spread is through nations who already have them. Obviously, Russia being one since they have over half the worlds nuclear weapons. China too, Im sure they have plenty, and then the U.S. Considering this nations history in dealing arms to nations, and our economic issues, I wouldnt put it past the CIA with their black market dealings to do so.

By the way if you still truly believe that the U.S. invaded Iraq because of human rights or anything similar, then you are mistaken. There were plenty of parts in Africa where genocide was occuring and the U.S. sat back and did nothing. That invasion was about establishing a puppet government, pure and simple.

As for the U.N. being mismanaged and corrupt; maybe they are, but surely not as mismanaged and corrupt as this nation has been. I mean, really, how can you call them corrupt in one breath and defend this nations record in the next? At least the U.N. doesnt bomb people before it drops food to them.

Originally posted by mrwupy
Whoa.....A little correction here. In WWII we were absolutely allies with Russia. After Hitler stabbed them in the back big time the United States and Russia became allies and kicked his ass. England helped a bit

We were once allies with Russia.

Thanks for catching that. But I must put a caveat on that ally mark. We were conditional allies with them. I don't think you can find a history text or personal journal on the matter by the world leaders and generals of the time, suggesting that we were friends of any sort. Considering Russia at the time was playing both sides of the fence, I wouldn't consider them an ally.

Incorrect. We have never been allies with Russia. We have made allies with former soviet block countries, but not Russia. We, at best, have been civil with them.

I think you should do some research before I respond to that statement.

We have been having talks with China since Nixon, but that hasn't gotten anywhere. Base upon the continued detected spying and espionage done by China, friendship is far away.

Trade agreements, diplomatic support for our war of terror, and nuclear proliferation agreements aren't progress? pretty much a declared state of neutrality on the United States stance against North Korea? Loans to our government to support our disgusting overspending habit?

Its not a perfect relationship, but its almost a 180 from the 70's...

The UN's lack of action against Saddam Hussein in the 90's is to blame for us ever having the reason to invade in 2003. Not to mention the continued boondoggle over spending and aid money being wasted by the UN.

Whoa, thats some heavy opinion... Did you forget that the CIA assisted in placing Saddam's political party in power? Or that our government paid him to assasinate the previous leader of Iraq? Perhaps the U.N. said "screw you, you made the mess, now fix it yourself".

But again, Iraq is purely an instance of the United States attempting to impose a tyrannical rule in the world. almost a "if you have oil, do as we say or we'll invade!" attitude.

The UN has proved to be an even more monumental failure than the League of Nations. It is a far cry from being a hope for anything positive in the world.

The U.N is tenfold more successful than the league of nations. Just because their decisions don't match what our country wants to do 100% of the time does not make them a failure... The U.N. is in place to protect the world from countries like us.

The League of Nations is an interesting point to bring up, seeing as the failure of this org was largely in part due to lack of U.S. support. Our government did the legwork and tried to assemble the league of nations, then failed to support or participate...

It has the sound of our current U.N. in that regard, except this time... the other countries in the world will not let our asinine political system subvert the United Nations.

Geneva Conventions apply to uniformed fighters of a nation. The debate on what constitute torture is for another forum. We have, however, violated the sovereignty of nations at times.

Erm, actually our government recognized that the goings on at Abu Ghraib violated the Geneva Conventions by Court Martial... so the argument about "what is torture" doesn't detract from my original statement that the U.S. has failed to comply with the Geneva Conventions.

Don't get me wrong... there are MORE violations of the Geneva conventions, however, like you said, another thread another day...

[edit on 19-11-2008 by nj2day]

[edit on 19-11-2008 by nj2day]