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

[woolfe9999]

We don't want other people to have them because it would make the US less powerful and less able to control international action. Period.

The argument that some countries are 'insane' is ridiculous and completely unsupported by reality. Neither Iran nor North Korea are 'crazy', and the reason why their possession of nukes is 'bad' is because it's bad for the US. I know it's convenient to tell ourselves that people who oppose the US are nuts, but you're really doing everyone a disservice because it prevents us from addressing the issue rationally. (we should all note the irony of our irrational position that these regimes are irrational)

That may be, but so what effing what? Nuclear proliferation is not in the best interests of humanity, period. It doesn't matter if we oppose proliferation for the "wrong" reason, because non-proliferation is the only policy that even remotely makes sense.

So far as the countries that already have nuclear weapons, it is academic. Nuclear armed nations cannot and will not be disarmed, period. Which is exactly why the question posed in this thread is utterly moronic and based on a false premise. The US doesn't "approve" of some countries having nuclear weapons but not others. We haven't given our nuclear technology away, not to the UK, not to Israel, India, or anyone else. Those countries developed them on their own and/or stole the technology. We may claim that we believe some countries are more likely to use them than others, but it is irrelevant whether or not we are correct because the only sane policy is to oppose every nation's attempt to acquire them.

Frankly I don't really care that some people think that the US is just as likely to use them as an Islamic fundamentalist regime. I'm sure those same people would be mightily spooked of a fundie Christian theocracy had a stockpile and would be the first to argue that their religosity made it a greater threat. But even if this double standard is somehow correct, the premise of this thread is utterly false because the question of what policy to pursue with regimes that already have the weapons is entirely different than the policy to pursue with respect to those trying to acquire them.

What exactly do you guys expect the US to do? "Gee we're sorry that we and Israel have nuclear weapons Mr. Ahmadinejad. We never meant to imply that Islamic theocracies are any less rational the western democracies. Please, develop a nuclear arsenal. In fact, you can have some of ours." Really now, if that ISN'T what you gus are saying - that we should just allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, and by extension, everyone else who wants them - then what of any practical significance are we really discussing here? It can't possibly be Craig's pie-eyed fantasy about a world wide ban, because it isn't gonna happen in this century and probably not the next, and we all know that. There is, of course, one other option: that the purpose of discussions like these is not a practical one at all, but rather an excuse to bash the US by claiming that we are worse than our enemies. Some people just never tire of inventing excuses to do that...

- wolf

 

[fskimospy]

WWI is a weak justification??

The fact that a cruise ship was sunk and then we intercepted a telegram that was attempting to plan an attack??

As was said earlier, you are clearly just trolling. No amount of logic or reason is going to change that.

-GP

Uhmm, I'm not the OP.

The sinking of a British (not American) cruise ship carrying munitions for their enemies and the request to a neighbor of ours for an alliance that would be activated if and only if the US declared war on Germany, is not exactly a fantastic justification for total war, no.

Logic and reason? You gotta clear up your facts first man.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Uhmm, I'm not the OP.

The sinking of a British (not American) cruise ship carrying munitions for their enemies and the request to a neighbor of ours for an alliance that would be activated if and only if the US declared war on Germany, is not exactly a fantastic justification for total war, no.

Logic and reason? You gotta clear up your facts first man.

It wasn't if we declared war. It was if they thought we were likely to enter the war. Very big difference.

Additionally, the Lusitania was only the tip of that iceberg. It represented Germany's refusal to stop unrestricted submarine warfare.

I cannot believe anyone would argue the moral validity of WWI.

-GP

 

[schneiderguy]

So you have decided to admit that you are trolling rather than trying for a honest discussion.

Objectively the US is crazier than NK and Iran.

Their social policies have nothing to do with how "crazy" they are. The facts are that they are much more peaceful than we are.

The Soviet Union was a totalitarian police state for ~50 years while they had nuclear weapons and they never nuked us. I don't see the difference between them and NK and Iran.

 

[fskimospy]

It wasn't if we declared war. It was if they thought we were likely to enter the war. Very big difference.

Additionally, the Lusitania was only the tip of that iceberg. It represented Germany's refusal to stop unrestricted submarine warfare.

I cannot believe anyone would argue the moral validity of WWI.

-GP

Wrong.

The complete text of the telegram, bolding is mine:

"We intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement in detail is left to you. You will inform the President of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States of America is certain and add the suggestion that he should, on his own initiative, invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves. Please call the President's attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace." Signed, ZIMMERMANN

Nowhere in that telegram is there a request for an attack on the United States without a declaration of war.

Lots of people question the moral validity of WW1. What I don't understand is your need for US wars to be moral. Who cares if they are or not?

 

[Fayd]

It's not a question of expecting them to abide, it's a question of having an effective monitoring in place, without which there wouldn't be an agreement.

This would presumably be a role for the IAEA, under the UN, required to be able to detect violations globally.

and the UN is really a trustworthy organization whose members can't be bribed or coerced into inaction?

hell, they don't even have the balls to enforce their own resolutions.

non-proliferation + MAD works, for the immediate future. it's the best defense against nuclear war we currently have. your idea that "banning" nuclear weapons is possible or even plausible is just stupid.

 

[Infohawk]

Their social policies have nothing to do with how "crazy" they are. The facts are that they are much more peaceful than we are.

You keep repeating this naive nonsense.

Imagine a rabid pit bull is kept in a cage. It never bites anyone. Now imagine a chihuahua is allowed to roam free and has bitten a couple people. Are you really dumb enough to think that the chihuahua is more dangerous than the pit bull? Or is it possible that there are outside factors that have restrained. Like an idiot, you're saying, "let the rabid dog out he's proved he's not dangerous. Those are facts ."

 

[fskimospy]

You keep repeating this naive nonsense.

Imagine a rabid pit bull is kept in a cage. It never bites anyone. Now imagine a chihuahua is allowed to roam free and has bitten a couple people. Are you really dumb enough to think that the chihuahua is more dangerous than the pit bull? Or is it possible that there are outside factors that have restrained. Like an idiot, you're saying, "let the rabid dog out he's proved he's not dangerous. Those are facts ."

Once again, Iran and North Korea aren't rabid, insane states. (and the US is no chihuahua) This comparison is terrible.

 

[Craig234]

Objectively the US is crazier than NK and Iran.

Their social policies have nothing to do with how "crazy" they are. The facts are that they are much more peaceful than we are.

The Soviet Union was a totalitarian police state for ~50 years while they had nuclear weapons and they never nuked us. I don't see the difference between them and NK and Iran.

I can't agree with you about NK. The issue there isn't comparing our actions. If NK had military power equal to the rest of the world combined, their actions would be different.

NK is a candidate for the craziest country that has ever existed.

Watch this documentary for a little piece of North Korea - it's on Netflix:

http://www.amazon.com/National-Geogr.../dp/B000M2E34K

 

[fskimospy]

I can't agree with you about NK. The issue there isn't comparing our actions. If NK had military power equal to the rest of the world combined, their actions would be different.

NK is a candidate for the craziest country that has ever existed.

Watch this documentary for a little piece of North Korea - it's on Netflix:

http://www.amazon.com/National-Geogr.../dp/B000M2E34K

The North Korean personality cult was modeled after the one that Stalin created. It's not that North Korea wouldn't be more aggressive if they could, and it's not that their having nuclear weapons wouldn't be a bad thing for the US, but they are not insane.

Can you point to specific foreign policy actions by NK that you believe to be insane?

 

[Infohawk]

Once again, Iran and North Korea aren't rabid, insane states. (and the US is no chihuahua) This comparison is terrible.

It's an analogy. The fact that you try to portray North Korea as sane just shows how delusional you are. North Korea is the characteristic example of a crazy, dangerous autocratic regime.

 

[fskimospy]

It's an analogy. The fact that you try to portray North Korea as sane just shows how delusional you are. North Korea is the characteristic example of a crazy, dangerous autocratic regime.

All you guys are doing is showing your ignorance of international relations.

What foreign policy actions has North Korea taken that are insane? Be specific.

 

[Printer Bandit]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBfjU3_XOaA

 

[Infohawk]

All you guys are doing is showing your ignorance of international relations.

What foreign policy actions has North Korea taken that are insane? Be specific.

How about constantly threatening war every damned year? Does South Korea do this? No. And it's not just the foreign policy actions, it's the internal structure. Are you really denying that the personality cult they have going on is normal? Are you denying that all the bizarre totalitarian outcomes INSIDE the country are rational? You're showing your lack of common sense by pretending like North Korea is some example of a rational state. North Korea is being run by a person many people consider a lunatic. He doesn't have any internal limits on his power. Contrast this with America where there are long-standing balances of power and a strong civil society.

 

[fskimospy]

How about constantly threatening war every damned year? Does South Korea do this? No. And it's not just the foreign policy actions, it's the internal structure. Are you really denying that the personality cult they have going on is normal? Are you denying that all the bizarre totalitarian outcomes INSIDE the country are rational? You're showing your lack of common sense by pretending like North Korea is some example of a rational state. North Korea is being run by a person many people consider a lunatic. He doesn't have any internal limits on his power. Contrast this with America where there are long-standing balances of power and a strong civil society.

What's not rational about threatening war every year? The North Korean government has very specific capital and resource needs that it can't meet internally, therefore it meets them externally. Actually GOING to war would be irrational, but causing an international incident that gets them money and resources is perfectly rational.

As for internal constraints on power, what you wrote is simply untrue. Kim Jong Il relies on a significant party and military apparatus in order to maintain his power and their wishes absolutely constrain him. Do you think that he just does whatever he wants? A good example of this would be North Korea's 'military first' policy that KJI instituted after Kim Il Sung died. Since KJI didn't have the secure base of power that his dad did, he needed to buy off the army to secure his position. If you think they don't continue to hold influence over what he does today, you are sadly mistaken.

Who cares if the personality cult is normal or not? Who cares what the average North Korean citizen thinks? Are they in control of North Korea's foreign policy? Is KJI handing over the keys to the nukes to them? Of course not. As for the outcomes inside the country, from the viewpoint of the leadership they are completely rational. KJI's goal is to remain in power, period. He has no other goals. If he remains in power through a crazy personality cult, thus accomplishing his goals, how on earth is that not rational?

You seem to be confusing 'good' with 'rational'. North Korea's actions are bad news for the US and its neighbors. The fact that they have nuclear weapons strengthens their bargaining position, and THAT is why we should oppose them. It has nothing to do with North Korea being 'crazy' or something, because there's no evidence for that whatsoever.

If you still think that they are crazy, please provide a specific example of a foreign policy action that North Korea has taken and then explain why you think it is insane. Remember to look at it from the North Korean leadership's perspective, not ours.

 

[Infohawk]

What's not rational about threatening war every year? The North Korean government has very specific capital and resource needs that it can't meet internally, therefore it meets them externally. Actually GOING to war would be irrational, but causing an international incident that gets them money and resources is perfectly rational.

Except he could also take other more reasonable actions to improve his country's lot. Like moving it towards union with South Korea or a free market like the rest of the world has. In your mind, it seems like it would be reasonable to rape a woman if you wanted to get laid because you'd get your rocks off. So yes I'm incorporating a certain amount of ethics into the term reasonable. Because I think ethics in society and in international relations come out of reason.

The bottom line is that you and OP are acting like the US is just as bad or worse as North Korea. Only the most stoned potheads are going to listen to that kind of ludicrous rant. It would be one thing if you were saying no country can be trusted to have nukes, but that's not where you're stopping.

 

[pcgeek11]

We don't want other people to have them because it would make the US less powerful and less able to control international action. Period.

The argument that some countries are 'insane' is ridiculous and completely unsupported by reality. Neither Iran nor North Korea are 'crazy', and the reason why their possession of nukes is 'bad' is because it's bad for the US. I know it's convenient to tell ourselves that people who oppose the US are nuts, but you're really doing everyone a disservice because it prevents us from addressing the issue rationally. (we should all note the irony of our irrational position that these regimes are irrational)

Right... The leaders of NK and Iran are the foundation of sane intelligent leadership....

Gotcha!

 

[fskimospy]

Except he could also take other more reasonable actions to improve his country's lot. Like moving it towards union with South Korea or a free market like the rest of the world has. In your mind, it seems like it would be reasonable to rape a woman if you wanted to get laid because you'd get your rocks off. So yes I'm incorporating a certain amount of ethics into the term reasonable. Because I think ethics in society and in international relations come out of reason.

The bottom line is that you and OP are acting like the US is just as bad or worse as North Korea. Only the most stoned potheads are going to listen to that kind of ludicrous rant. It would be one thing if you were saying no country can be trusted to have nukes, but that's not where you're stopping.

Once again, he's not trying to improve his country's lot, he's trying to secure his own power.

EDIT: And remember, I said government, not state. The government is not trying particularly hard to meet the needs of the North Korean state, they are trying to meet the needs of the people that KJI requires the support of to stay in power.

How would unifying with South Korea keep Kim Jong Il in power? It wouldn't. How would removing his control over industrial output help him stay in power? It wouldn't. You are viewing North Korea's actions based upon what is best for North Korea when you should be looking at what's best for Kim Jong Il. Improving North Korea's lot is only in his favor if it keeps him at the top while it happens. Within this context all of his actions are totally rational. This is also why he will never use his nuclear weapons unless his regime's survival is at stake.

I'm not trying to say that the US is as bad or worse than North Korea, what I'm trying to say is that people are painting an overly idealistic view of the US's foreign policy, and that the idea that North Korea and Iran shouldn't have nukes because they are 'crazy' is a silly proposition, one totally unsupported by reality.

 

[fskimospy]

Right... The leaders of NK and Iran are the foundation of sane intelligent leadership....

Gotcha!

Same challenge to you. Please provide specific examples of foreign policy actions by Iran or NK along with why you believe them to be insane.

 

[Craig234]

The North Korean personality cult was modeled after the one that Stalin created. It's not that North Korea wouldn't be more aggressive if they could, and it's not that their having nuclear weapons wouldn't be a bad thing for the US, but they are not insane.

Can you point to specific foreign policy actions by NK that you believe to be insane?

If saying the North Korean personality cult was modeled after Stalin - they took it a lot further than Stalin - is supposed to indicate it's not crazy, I disagree.

I'm only saying North Korea is crazy as a nation. I'm not saying that it means their foreign policy actions are crazy as well.

The kind of crazy they have doesn't seem to come out in crazy aggression against more powerful countries. That's a good thing.

 

[cubby1223]

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

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=north+korea+attacks+south+korea

 

[cubby1223]

All you guys are doing is showing your ignorance of international relations.

What foreign policy actions has North Korea taken that are insane? Be specific.

Or, it is our military might that is keeping North Korea from taking insane actions.

 

[boochi]

This fucker is INSANE!!!

 

[Kadarin]

Objectively the US is crazier than NK and Iran.

Their social policies have nothing to do with how "crazy" they are. The facts are that they are much more peaceful than we are.

The Soviet Union was a totalitarian police state for ~50 years while they had nuclear weapons and they never nuked us. I don't see the difference between them and NK and Iran.

Dude, you live in San Ramon. Get the fuck out of the US and move to NK if you think it's so great there.

 

[Infohawk]

Once again, he's not trying to improve his country's lot, he's trying to secure his own power.

EDIT: And remember, I said government, not state. The government is not trying particularly hard to meet the needs of the North Korean state, they are trying to meet the needs of the people that KJI requires the support of to stay in power.

How would unifying with South Korea keep Kim Jong Il in power? It wouldn't. How would removing his control over industrial output help him stay in power? It wouldn't. You are viewing North Korea's actions based upon what is best for North Korea when you should be looking at what's best for Kim Jong Il. Improving North Korea's lot is only in his favor if it keeps him at the top while it happens. Within this context all of his actions are totally rational. This is also why he will never use his nuclear weapons unless his regime's survival is at stake.

I'm not trying to say that the US is as bad or worse than North Korea, what I'm trying to say is that people are painting an overly idealistic view of the US's foreign policy, and that the idea that North Korea and Iran shouldn't have nukes because they are 'crazy' is a silly proposition, one totally unsupported by reality.

Yeah you pretty much ignored my post...

Your damned right I'm looking at it from what's best for NK. Again, you're trying to excuse criminal behavior by saying it benefits the criminal. Who fucking cares?! The point is a criminal shouldn't have weapons. I'm curious, do you think Hitler was crazy? Was he somehow not crazy because he had so much early success?