Why is it OK for some countries to have nuclear weapons and not others?

[schneiderguy]

Why does the US make a big stink about certain countries developing nuclear weapons?

The US is the only country that's ever used a nuclear weapon in war. And we start way more wars than Iran or North Korea.

If it's anyone that shouldn't have nukes, it's the US, since we can't be trusted not to use them and not to invade half of the countries on the Earth.

 

[Argo]

For the same reason we don't sell guns to mentally insane and felons.

 

[Infohawk]

Do you really think that the US is morally equivalent to NK or Iran? Really? Do you not see the difference between a stable democracy having nukes and an authoritarian regime having nukes?

For all the interventions the US has had, many of which I oppose, they haven't used them to take over territory anytime recently. For all the bitching about the nukes used in Japan, Japan is now one of the richest countries in the world with full sovereignty (except for a couple military bases that help defend it). Meanwhile, people are starving in North Korea and women are being stoned to death in Iran.

Your tag makes me think you're drunk.

 

[schneiderguy]

For the same reason we don't sell guns to mentally insane and felons.

But the US is even crazier than NK and Iran :hmm:

 

[Craig234]

Why does the US make a big stink about certain countries developing nuclear weapons?

The US is the only country that's ever used a nuclear weapon in war. And we start way more wars than Iran or North Korea.

If it's anyone that shouldn't have nukes, it's the US, since we can't be trusted not to use them and not to invade half of the countries on the Earth.

It's really a very good question.

People tend to just accept power structures. The answer to why the countries that have them should be the only ones is because they're the only ones who do.

Then people make up reasons to fit their opinion - other nations are dangerous, and it'd be dangerous for us if we didn't have them.

There really isn't justice - more expedience in the logic. We decide other nations are second-rate because we have power to say they are.

On the one hand, there's some truth that any nation has risk to have them, and it's likely some other nations would abuse them more than the nations who have them.

But it's also true that the nations who have them aren't as perfect as they'd like to pretend they are.

It's a matter of time before some conflict will likely erupt into their use. The responsible thing would be to do what most presidents since they were invented said we should do, ban them globally. It's actually one of the most important things we should be doing, which is being ignored until it's too late, like leaving a loaded gun the kids play with.

But since when do some people give up an unfair power? Hardly.

Like a drunk driver rationalizes he'll be ok, our nuclear fans rationalize we won't have a nuclear war. They assume human nature has changed recently since it's entire history.

We should all be pushing for the ban - one our country committed to - to be done.

 

[Jaskalas]

Give me some nukes, I'll show you why they don't belong to people.

/thread.

 

[schneiderguy]

Do you really think that the US is morally equivalent to NK or Iran? Really? Do you not see the difference between a stable democracy having nukes and an authoritarian regime having nukes?

The US is morally worse. The US uses it's military power to bully other countries into submission. We've invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Kosovo, Pakistan, and probably more countries that I've forgotten about in the past two decades.

On the other hand, NK and Iran have been peaceful for the past 2+ decades.

 

[schneiderguy]

We should all be pushing for the ban - one our country committed to - to be done.

I don't think they should necessarily be banned. I think they are a good deterrent to large scale conflict.

I just don't see why the US thinks it can decide who can have nukes and who can't. NK and Iran are sovereign nations, they can have nuclear weapons if they want to.

 

[Infohawk]

The US is morally worse. The US uses it's military power to bully other countries into submission. We've invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Kosovo, Pakistan, and probably more countries that I've forgotten about in the past two decades.

On the other hand, NK and Iran have been peaceful for the past 2+ decades.

We haven't invaded Libya. We haven't invaded Pakistan. We didn't invade Kosovo. We're leaving Iraq and Afghanistan. I was against the Iraq war but it's not like we made them 51st and 52nd states.

NK was involved with a war with its neighbor and is still bullying it daily. Iran fought a war with its neighbor. (Not sure what you're trying to pull with your BS 2+ decades cherry-picking.)

The real question is what would have happened if NK and Iran had the power the US did. There would be a lot more stoned women and a lot more starving people.

Considering the US is the most powerful country in history, its shown remarkable restraint. Not perfect, but remarkably restrained. Compare the US territorial gains during WW2 and with the Soviet Union's territorial gains in WW2.

 

[schneiderguy]

We haven't invaded Libya. We haven't invaded Pakistan. We didn't invade Kosovo.

American military personnel were inside the borders of all of those countries shooting at stuff. We invaded them.

 

[Infohawk]

American military personnel were inside the borders of all of those countries shooting at stuff. We invaded them.

Nice job ignoring everything else. Fuck it. You're obviously trolling.

By your dumb logic the US was invaded during WW2 because foreign operatives infiltrated the US.

 

[schneiderguy]

NK was involved with a war with its neighbor and is still bullying it daily. Iran fought a war with its neighbor. (Not sure what you're trying to pull with your BS 2+ decades cherry-picking.)

Border disputes are different than invading countries halfway across the globe.

The real question is what would have happened if NK and Iran had the power the US did. There would be a lot more stoned women and a lot more starving people.

Their social policies have nothing to do with whether or not they should have nukes.

Considering the US is the most powerful country in history, its shown remarkable restraint. Not perfect, but remarkably restrained. Compare the US territorial gains during WW2 and with the Soviet Union's territorial gains in WW2.

Invading 6+ countries in the past two decades unprovoked is not remarkable restraint.

Nice job ignoring everything else. Fuck it. You're obviously trolling.

Happy now?

By your dumb logic the US was invaded during WW2 because foreign operatives infiltrated the US.

Germany wasn't flying around in their planes bombing the continental US during WW2.

 

[sportage]

It's not ok for any country to have nukes.
It's just that some do and some don't.

 

[Nebor]

I'm pretty sure you're too dumb\young to post in P&N. OT has spoken about this.

 

[Infohawk]

Border disputes are different than invading countries halfway across the globe.

Border disputes? You mean all out total war to conquer as opposed to limited military actions where we ALWAYS withdraw. If the US was so evil why didn't it use nukes in all these "invasions"?

Their social policies have nothing to do with whether or not they should have nukes.

Yes it does.

Invading 6+ countries in the past two decades unprovoked is not remarkable restraint.

Your definition of invasion is ridiculous.

Germany wasn't flying around in their planes bombing the continental US during WW2.

So what you were talking about people on the ground... be consistent.

Again, look at all the countries that had similar military power to the US in the last century. They all used their militaries for conquest if not worse (genocide, mass rape and murder). You're comparing the US to some non-existent perfect country. Try comparing them to real countries that have the same abilities and you'll see they're restrained.

 

[RabidMongoose]

If it's anyone that shouldn't have nukes, it's the US, since we can't be trusted not to use them and not to invade half of the countries on the Earth.

What about, say, the UK? I think that you're focusing too much on just use of nuclear weapons instead of associated atrocities. The UK, for example, raped and pillaged the entire world. If anyone shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons, I'd say that it should be them.

 

[schneiderguy]

What about, say, the UK? I think that you're focusing too much on just use of nuclear weapons instead of associated atrocities. The UK, for example, raped and pillaged the entire world. If anyone shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons, I'd say that it should be them.

I'm focusing on both. Most of the "good" countries that have nuclear weapons have caused most of the wars in the last century or so. There's no reason that they can be trusted to have nuclear weapons but Iran and North Korea (historically much more peaceful countries) can't.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I'm focusing on both. Most of the "good" countries that have nuclear weapons have caused most of the wars in the last century or so. There's no reason that they can be trusted to have nuclear weapons but Iran and North Korea (historically much more peaceful countries) can't.

Oh OK.Honestly, I would say that the US having nuclear weapons is a good counter to the UK having nuclear weapons. I can't even imagine the havoc that the British would cause around the world if they weren't kept in line.

But I can see your overall point, too.

 

[schneiderguy]

I'm pretty sure you're too dumb\young to post in P&N. OT has spoken about this.

Yeah, because P&N is the intellectual center of the universe with people like dmcowen and Anarchist420 running around.

 

[bfdd]

Because we will never get rid of them all nor should we, but we definitely don't need more in the world.

 

[schneiderguy]

Border disputes? You mean all out total war to conquer as opposed to limited military actions where we ALWAYS withdraw. If the US was so evil why didn't it use nukes in all these "invasions"?

Tens/hundreds of thousands of troops != limited military action

Yes it does.

Why is it OK for China to have nukes? Their social policies are just as authoritarian as NK or Iran.

Your definition of invasion is ridiculous.

So you'd be cool with Canada flying around in their jets bombing targets in the US because it's not an invasion? K.

 

[Infohawk]

Yeah, because P&N is the intellectual center of the universe with people like dmcowen and Anarchist420 running around.

This thread is just as bad as the crap they post. This thread is full-retard. It would be one thing if you said no countries should have them but you're going further and saying some of the most unstable and poorly-intentioned countries should have them.

Your idea that NK and Iran are more peaceful than the US is stupid and naive. Do you really think that they haven't been in as many wars because they're more peaceful? Isn't it more likely that they haven't been in as many wars because they knew they would lose and because they can't project their power?

 

[pcgeek11]

I'm focusing on both. Most of the "good" countries that have nuclear weapons have caused most of the wars in the last century or so. There's no reason that they can be trusted to have nuclear weapons but Iran and North Korea (historically much more peaceful countries) can't.

What do you think keeps Iran and North Korea in line?

It is countries with bigger sticks ( Nuc weapons and all ) that would beat them to a pulp. That is why they haven't started shit.

 

[Infohawk]

Tens/hundreds of thousands of troops != limited military action

Do you know what total war is? We didn't have a draft in these wars. Our economy didn't completely dedicate itself for these wars. So yeah, for the US it wasn't total war. Because we would have used our nukes if it were.

Why is it OK for China to have nukes? Their social policies are just as authoritarian as NK or Iran.

Actually they're not. China doesn't stone women and it doesn't even practice communism anymore. The USSR and USA should have acted right away to stop China from having nukes, but they didn't. Nevertheless, China is not as bad as those two. Their foreign policy is also a lot more stable.

So you'd be cool with Canada flying around in their jets bombing targets in the US because it's not an invasion? K.

No I wouldn't be okay with it. But it wouldn't be the same as Canada moving in and turning the US into another province if it could.

 

[schneiderguy]

What do you think keeps Iran and North Korea in line?

It is countries with bigger sticks ( Nuc weapons and all ) that would beat them to a pulp. That is why they haven't started shit.

Maybe if NK and Iran had nuclear weapons the US wouldn't be so eager to start shit?