What right do "Western" countries have to FORCE developing nations not to pursue nuclear development?

[SunnyD]

I've been following the Iranian nuclear saga, and since this isn't the first time it's happened in even the last year, I have to ask...

What right does the US, and other "Western" nations like the UK, France and Germany have to tell developing nations "sorry, but you're not ALLOWED to develop a nuclear energy/weapons program" ?

Is it just because we have nukes and therefore can bully the world around? Sure, developing nations CAN use their nuke programs to develop weapons, but who really cares? We're worried nukes will get into the wrong hands? They will anyway even if these countries don't have their programs.

So why not take a proactive approach and educate these countries, and allow them to foster the scientific community, and their social community (electricity)?

Or are we just too afraid that one of these countries will actually surpass us technologically...

 

[Spencer278]

How gives a damn about "right" I just don't want to get nuked.

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
I've been following the Iranian nuclear saga, and since this isn't the first time it's happened in even the last year, I have to ask...

What right does the US, and other "Western" nations like the UK, France and Germany have to tell developing nations "sorry, but you're not ALLOWED to develop a nuclear energy/weapons program" ?

Is it just because we have nukes and therefore can bully the world around? Sure, developing nations CAN use their nuke programs to develop weapons, but who really cares? We're worried nukes will get into the wrong hands? They will anyway even if these countries don't have their programs.

So why not take a proactive approach and educate these countries, and allow them to foster the scientific community, and their social community (electricity)?

Or are we just too afraid that one of these countries will actually surpass us technologically...

have you even bothered looking at the political nature or stability of the regimes in question ? north korean is what ? a utopian
communist paradise overflowing with happy-go-luck rubes. how about iran ? there a guardian council acting above the will of the
people, exercising absolute power, and rigging their own elections is supposed to represent sane governance ?

 

[tnitsuj]

Might makes right. Once nations have nukes, we won't be able to force them to do anything.

This is IMHO unnaceptable.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: syzygy
have you even bothered looking at the political nature or stability of the regimes in question ? north korean is what ? a utopian
communist paradise overflowing with happy-go-luck rubes. how about iran ? there a guardian council acting above the will of the
people, exercising absolute power, and rigging their own elections is supposed to represent sane governance ?

So rather than an individual communist country, we have a communist world where individual puppet nations are goverened by the west?

So why not just go barging into those countries too and installing political structures that do our very whim? It seems to be working successfully in Afghanistan, Iraq and Haiti...

Might makes right. Once nations have nukes, we won't be able to force them to do anything.

So what you're saying is that we MUST have other nations and people out there to piss on and exploit for their undeveloped status?

This is exactly why I asked this question... what gives US the right to FORCE any other country to do something (especially when it's not to that other country's benefit)?

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: syzygy
have you even bothered looking at the political nature or stability of the regimes in question ? north korean is what ? a utopian
communist paradise overflowing with happy-go-luck rubes. how about iran ? there a guardian council acting above the will of the
people, exercising absolute power, and rigging their own elections is supposed to represent sane governance ?

So rather than an individual communist country, we have a communist world where individual puppet nations are goverened by the west?

So why not just go barging into those countries too and installing political structures that do our very whim? It seems to be working successfully in Afghanistan, Iraq and Haiti...

you are a very poor chomsky clone - not that the original is much either. if this 'comunist world' even existed they would be so lucky
to allow themselves to be governed by the west, i.e. democratic governances, but no and never. your communist world has wittled
down to a few social catastrophes which you can cheer for in all their leftist glory.

 

[maluckey]

What gives the local Police force the right to arrest a criminal before he actually kills someone??

If he is making overt acts towards murder, the criminal can, and should be arrested for the good of the community. The same applies on a global scale. Nuclear weapons are of little use for defense, as they kill indiscriminately. The genie is out of the bottle, but that doesn't mean that we should give the power to just anyone so that they can enforce their agenda. With Superpower staus, comes Superpower responsibility. You can no longer just say that as long as you don't nuke the U.S., it's O.K. Some countries don't play by the rules.

 

[SunnyD]

What I am saying is that if we don't allow other countries to advance themselves out of the stoneage, then it is OUR fault of their downfalls. Why do we even have individual countries if the world is to be governed by one or two anyway?

I am not trying to emulate anyone's posts - I'm honestly just curious what gives us the right to govern the rest of the world when the rest of the world sees itself as independent.

 

[K1052]

I think every nation has the right to establish a purely civilian nuclear industry for power generation.

The "Western" countries prefer that every country in the world develop nuclear weapons for several reasons. It is not in our best interest strategically, the more small countries that acquire the weapons increases the chances of use, and to prevent a new global arms race to guard against rouge states.

The U.S. has already committed to developing several ABM systems at enormous cost.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
What I am saying is that if we don't allow other countries to advance themselves out of the stoneage, then it is OUR fault of their downfalls. Why do we even have individual countries if the world is to be governed by one or two anyway?

I am not trying to emulate anyone's posts - I'm honestly just curious what gives us the right to govern the rest of the world when the rest of the world sees itself as independent.

making nuclear bombs isn't helping korea out of the stone age. or iran. their governments don't have any interest in raising the level of their people, it makes it easier for them to stay in power that way.

as for what gives us the right to do so? we're the only ones who can guarantee our own security.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

What right does the US, and other "Western" nations like the UK, France and Germany have to tell developing nations "sorry, but you're not ALLOWED to develop a nuclear energy/weapons program" ?

moraly, none;
and i hope we pursue it with even more vigor than we have been.

The world isn't a nation of laws, it's a jungle: "kill or be killed" and many that hold the view: "kill even if killed."

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

What right does the US, and other "Western" nations like the UK, France and Germany have to tell developing nations "sorry, but you're not ALLOWED to develop a nuclear energy/weapons program" ?

moraly, none;
and i hope we pursue it with even more vigor than we have been.

The world isn't a nation of laws, it's a jungle: "kill or be killed" and many that hold the view: "kill even if killed."

So why isn't the world under the leadership of the strongest?

Or is it simply that the strongest isn't strong enough to accomplish this?

 

[maluckey]

The United States is the Sole and undisputed Superpower. It would be virtual suicide for any one nation to attack the United States without the support of at least China or Russia. It would require multiple nations to even stand a chance. Furthermore the entire world bases it's economy off of the United States to some extent. If the United States Economy tanks, so does every other developed nations economy to one extent or another.

I think it's good that the U.S. is the overdog in this case. Can you imagine if North Korea was the only Superpower? Great times would be in store for all dissidents........

 

[rahvin]

This farce we call international law is partly to blame for people thinking life is fair and nation-states have to accept and work with other national interests. Nation-states should always place their own self-interest above that of other nation-states. Those that run the worlds nations realize that failing to do so will result in the destruction of the nation-state that doesn't follow this princicple. So we have a bunch of panzy asses running around saying it's not fair that we have nuclear weapons and Iran or others don't.

I don't want anyone to have nuclear weapons but the US. Hell I don't want anyone in the world to have conventional weapons but the US.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: rahvin
I don't want anyone to have nuclear weapons but the US. Hell I don't want anyone in the world to have conventional weapons but the US.

I don't want ANYONE to have weapons, period - as in no need for them. But let's get serious people - as long as there is A) Religion and B) A difference of opinion in the world, people are always going to fight.

 

[EcoLogic]

Very thankful some of you aren't our leaders.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

What right does the US, and other "Western" nations like the UK, France and Germany have to tell developing nations "sorry, but you're not ALLOWED to develop a nuclear energy/weapons program" ?

moraly, none;
and i hope we pursue it with even more vigor than we have been.

The world isn't a nation of laws, it's a jungle: "kill or be killed" and many that hold the view: "kill even if killed."

So why isn't the world under the leadership of the strongest?

Or is it simply that the strongest isn't strong enough to accomplish this?

because that isn't the wat of the good Christian folk of the US

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: rahvin
This farce we call international law is partly to blame for people thinking life is fair and nation-states have to accept and work with other national interests. Nation-states should always place their own self-interest above that of other nation-states. Those that run the worlds nations realize that failing to do so will result in the destruction of the nation-state that doesn't follow this princicple. So we have a bunch of panzy asses running around saying it's not fair that we have nuclear weapons and Iran or others don't.

I don't want anyone to have nuclear weapons but the US. Hell I don't want anyone in the world to have conventional weapons but the US.

What you stated is correct. But the way you choose to protect your self interest makes a world of difference. There were Germany and Japan who thought using force to accomplish that task was the best and quickest way and we all know the result. Smart leaders use diplomacy to protect their countries' self interest, and accomplish that task by negotiation and maybe giving away something, but in the end, everyone involved is happy.

Smart leader knows that his/her country is part of 140+ countries on this planet and being perceived as a partner rather than enemy by other countries is in the best interest of the his/her country.

 

[rudder]

Because even during the cold war culminating in the 80's and with the U.S. and Soviets having thousands of nukes at thier disposal, there were enough controls in place that made everyone reasonably assure that no nuclear war would take place.

It is quite a procedure for the U.S. to launch a nuke at someone. But what is holding Pakistan back from lobbing a nuke across the border to India? There is a shaky government in charge of the nukes over there, but that could easily change. There are no safeguards, if a nuke went missing, well hell it was probably someones uncle who runs a military branch.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: rahvin
I don't want anyone to have nuclear weapons but the US. Hell I don't want anyone in the world to have conventional weapons but the US.

I don't want ANYONE to have weapons, period - as in no need for them. But let's get serious people - as long as there is A) Religion and B) A difference of opinion in the world, people are always going to fight.

religion is merely a scapegoat. innate human flaws would lead to war even if there were no religion.

 

[Phokus]

Any nation who has half a brain will develop nuclear weapons so that nations like the USA and international institutions like the UN can't put their boot in their throats.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Any nation who has half a brain will develop nuclear weapons so that nations like the USA and international institutions like the UN can't stop them from putting their boot in their enemy's throats.

fixed

 

[TheGameIs21]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
I've been following the Iranian nuclear saga, and since this isn't the first time it's happened in even the last year, I have to ask...

What right does the US, and other "Western" nations like the UK, France and Germany have to tell developing nations "sorry, but you're not ALLOWED to develop a nuclear energy/weapons program" ?

Is it just because we have nukes and therefore can bully the world around? Sure, developing nations CAN use their nuke programs to develop weapons, but who really cares? We're worried nukes will get into the wrong hands? They will anyway even if these countries don't have their programs.

So why not take a proactive approach and educate these countries, and allow them to foster the scientific community, and their social community (electricity)?

Or are we just too afraid that one of these countries will actually surpass us technologically...

There is a difference between Weapons Grade Plutonium (not used in generation of electricity) and utility Plutonium (don't know the technical term for this grade). We have assisted MANY 3rd world nations in developing nuclear (and other) energy sources but have not allowed nations that are unstable in their leadership (coups and dictatorships are not countries we want to develop nuclear anything with).

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Phokus
Any nation who has half a brain will develop nuclear weapons so that nations like the USA and international institutions like the UN can't stop them from putting their boot in their enemy's throats.

fixed

You're kidding right?

Noone - even the insane dictators would resort to using a nuclear weapon as anything more than a deterrent. Reason being is that if they were to provoke a war with such a device, the whole world wouldn't survive the next 30 minutes. And that includes themselves... which by their own action would end their own fruitful days as leader/dictator/embezzler of their nation.

Now using religion as a scapegoat as you mentioned earlier - I don't think that our Islamic terrorist buddies would have any qualms setting one or two such devices off, because they know that it won't provoke international nuke-age, and they would do it all in the name of their religion. THEY have nothing to lose.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Phokus
Any nation who has half a brain will develop nuclear weapons so that nations like the USA and international institutions like the UN can't stop them from putting their boot in their enemy's throats.

fixed

Perhaps if we didn't stick our noses into other people's businesses, they wouldn't be considered our 'enemy'. It's a self manufactured problem.