North Korea to Launch ICBM

[BPSCG]

I'm not saying that everyone should have nukes. I'm saying that we have a double standard.

Do we? I have little problem with the idea of Britain or France or Israel or India having nukes. I'm more worried about the idea of China and Pakistan having them, and the idea of Iran or NK having them scares me to death.

Do you see a common thread here, that doesn't require my adoption of a double standard?

 

[Elind]

Do you have any answers to the question I asked? Here it is again: So do you happen to think the USA is the only country worthy of holding nuclear weapons? If so, on what grounds do you justify that?

Because that is the way the world has evolved. The US invented them and built them first. It is what we live with and eliminating them just like that, while the stated ideal of the US, is not as simple as your naivity would suggest, and sadly it is conceivable that it might be the primary deterrent for some that don't share your idealism.

 

[Crossbow]

Do we? I have little problem with the idea of Britain or France or Israel or India having nukes. I'm more worried about the idea of China and Pakistan having them, and the idea of Iran or NK having them scares me to death.

Do you see a common thread here, that doesn't require my adoption of a double standard?

We most certainly do have a double-standard when it comes to nuclear weapons.

The "Non-Proliferation Treaty" is essentially a deal that does not allow nations with nuclear weapons to develop nuclear weapons while the nations with nuclear weapons are supposed to get rid of their nuclear weapons.

Just about all of the nations with nuclear weapons (including the USA) have been very reticent to get rid of their own nuclear weapons.

 

[BPSCG]

We most certainly do have a double-standard when it comes to nuclear weapons.

The "Non-Proliferation Treaty" is essentially a deal that does not allow nations with nuclear weapons to develop nuclear weapons while the nations with nuclear weapons are supposed to get rid of their nuclear weapons.

Just about all of the nations with nuclear weapons (including the USA) have been very reticent to get rid of their own nuclear weapons.

That's really not germane to my question. Why am I comfortable with the idea of some countries' having nuclear weapons, uncomfortable with others, and scared to death of others? What's the common thread?

 

[Elind]

Duhh. What does "proliferation" mean to you? The original nuclear powers have actually reduced their weapons considerably, while the poor little ones you think are discriminated against continue to develop them.

Of course we have a double standard

It's called making a distinction between ourselves and countries like N Korea and Iran and perhaps an Islamic dictatorship in Pakistan at some time.

You don't make that distinction it seems. Your choice.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

The "Non-Proliferation Treaty" is essentially a deal that does not allow nations with nuclear weapons to develop nuclear weapons while the nations with nuclear weapons are supposed to get rid of their nuclear weapons.

You're leaving out another rather important point about the Non-Proliferation Treaty: countries chose to sign and ratify it. This was not a treaty that was stuffed down their throats by the United States (in fact, it was first proposed by Ireland). Every country had an option to sign or not to sign. India, Pakistan, and Israel chose not to ratify it. North Korea was one of the countries that signed and ratified the treaty, and therefore agreed not to produce nuclear weapons. In spite of this, the U.S. had to strike a separate deal with them to get them to not develop nuclear weapons. They subsequently developed them anyway in spite of the NPT and the Agreed Framework with the United States. They finally withdrew from the treaty in 2003, long after it was clear they were violating the treaty.

You can accuse the U.S. of having a double standard, but the fact is, countries chose to sign the NPT. If they signed it, they have an obligation to follow it. It is not a double-standard to demand that nations honor their agreements.

 

[Jocko]

That's really not germane to my question. Why am I comfortable with the idea of some countries' having nuclear weapons, uncomfortable with others, and scared to death of others? What's the common thread?

Uh oh, careful now. You sound dangerously close to making a value judgment regarding another country. You should know by now that such heretical thinking isn't allowed. No one's worse, just different.

Oh, except the USA. They're tEh sUck.

 

[Chaos]

I will, if I can. I'd like to point out two things though. First of all it seems to me that a former US secretary of denfence isn't an unbiased source. Secondly, it can actually be perfectly rational to try to convince your opponenets that your batsh*t crazy if you're trying to deter them.

Being batsh*t crazy was actually the official US Nuclear policy in the beginning of the Cold war (the strategy of Massive retaliation). You abandoned that strategy when the Soviets called your bluff a number of times. Castro might simply have been doing the same thing.

Even if Castro really said that, it might well be in the same category as Murray Gell-Mann telling Dan Quayle, "yes, you´re right, we only do this environment stuff in order to ruin the US economy."

In short, sarcasm.

 

[Crossbow]

Duhh. What does "proliferation" mean to you? The original nuclear powers have actually reduced their weapons considerably, while the poor little ones you think are discriminated against continue to develop them.

Of course we have a double standard

It's called making a distinction between ourselves and countries like N Korea and Iran and perhaps an Islamic dictatorship in Pakistan at some time.

You don't make that distinction it seems. Your choice.

I expect my definition of "proliferation" is rather close to yours, specifically: as in being productive and fruitful.

Anyway, while it is true the USA has reduced its total mega tonnage of its nuclear arsenal, never the less, the USA has continued to test, develop, and deploy many new nuclear weapons since it has signed on to the Non-Proliferation Treaty about 35 years ago. Further, the USA (nor any of the original nuclear weapon nations) have seriously tried to eliminate nuclear weapons as called for in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Therefore it is rather difficult for the USA to dissuade other nations from developing nuclear weapons if the USA refuses to take the comparable steps that it has long since promised to do.

 

[Crossbow]

That's really not germane to my question. Why am I comfortable with the idea of some countries' having nuclear weapons, uncomfortable with others, and scared to death of others? What's the common thread?

I had thought that I did answer the germane part of your question.

As for the part that you now designate as germane, then please ask someone else since I am not able to answer it.

 

[BPSCG]

I had thought that I did answer the germane part of your question.

As for the part that you now designate as germane, then please ask someone else since I am not able to answer it.

Clue: Jocko's in the ballpark.
Clue 2: Did you read Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy? It was on the assigned reading list last term.

 

[Crossbow]

You're leaving out another rather important point about the Non-Proliferation Treaty: countries chose to sign and ratify it. This was not a treaty that was stuffed down their throats by the United States (in fact, it was first proposed by Ireland). Every country had an option to sign or not to sign. India, Pakistan, and Israel chose not to ratify it. North Korea was one of the countries that signed and ratified the treaty, and therefore agreed not to produce nuclear weapons. In spite of this, the U.S. had to strike a separate deal with them to get them to not develop nuclear weapons. They subsequently developed them anyway in spite of the NPT and the Agreed Framework with the United States. They finally withdrew from the treaty in 2003, long after it was clear they were violating the treaty.

You can accuse the U.S. of having a double standard, but the fact is, countries chose to sign the NPT. If they signed it, they have an obligation to follow it. It is not a double-standard to demand that nations honor their agreements.

True enough!

Quite fortunately, the Non-Proliferation Treaty has been the most widely signed and best honored arms control treaty in the history of the world.

While that is great, I sure would like to see the rest of its terms fulfilled because the failure to do so could be disastrous for everyone.

 

[gnome]

I would love to see the world rid of nuclear weapons, but I think that genie's out of the bottle.

It isn't fair, but I agree with keeping nations that don't already have the atom bomb from getting it. It's a naturally unfair situation--the nuclear deterrent relies on all players being rational. The more players there are, the more likely that stalemate will break.

 

[BPSCG]

Frankly, I don't see what the point is of a treaty that allows its signatories to jump in and out of it as the spirit moves them, like so many Hollywood actors jumping in and out of bed.

"Oh, well, we decided we'd like to get some of them nuclear weapons for ourselves after all, so we're gonna call time out opt out while we build ourselves a little manhood. Then maybe we'll call time in sign on again once we have our new playtoys. Hope y'all understand; hey, you can do it too, if you like!"

 

[Elind]

True enough!

Quite fortunately, the Non-Proliferation Treaty has been the most widely signed and best honored arms control treaty in the history of the world.

While that is great, I sure would like to see the rest of its terms fulfilled because the failure to do so could be disastrous for everyone.

Why don't you grow up? Nobody will completely eliminate them while there are countries that might only be threatened by them. If that is an argument used by N. Korea or Iran and you think it is valid, then you have just told yourself why you won't see what you would like.

 

[hammegk]

Too many posters here thought their Daddy said "Right Makes Might" and still believe it.

 

[Elind]

 

[Trantor]

I am in agreement as far limiting the spread of nuclear weapons goes, but as long as the double standard exists, we can't really expect much cooperation from some countries that may view us as a threat. If we want others to stop work on nukes, we must practice what we preach.

Nukes are a cost effective way to deter others from attacking. One hundred nukes on long range missiles are cheaper and more deadly than expensive conventional forces. You have a large army marching toward you, a couple of nukes can take them all out easily. That is why a small country such as Israel, can stand up to anyone, including the major powers. Nukes equalize things. Israel with 200-500 nukes can deter even Russia from attacking. Russia may have 10,000 nukes, but should Israel drop 300 nukes on Russia, there wouldn't be much of a Russia left to enjoy their victory.

I don't like the thought of Muslim countries with nukes, but I can understand that they too may be afraid of us attacking them. They want to make things more equal. It is natural that they should feel that way and if the situation was reversed, I'm sure that we would be working very hard at getting nukes in order to equalize things. We may think that their religion is radical, but does anyone ever think about the energy and resources that we spend on the spread of Christianity. Just the other day on the "700 Club", I saw Pat Robertson boasting about the fact that over 1 million Bibles were sent to Iraq since our invasion, to spread the good word of God! If you were a Muslim, how would you feel about this?

I admit that I do watch the "700 Club" from time to time, I like to hear the BS straight from the horse's mouth!

 

[Crossbow]

I would love to see the world rid of nuclear weapons, but I think that genie's out of the bottle.

It isn't fair, but I agree with keeping nations that don't already have the atom bomb from getting it. It's a naturally unfair situation--the nuclear deterrent relies on all players being rational. The more players there are, the more likely that stalemate will break.

It sure is a shame that the major nuclear powers have every really developed the nerve to actually make any serious cuts in nuclear weapons. Even if the total number was greatly reduced and new testing was banned, then that would at least be position that we could logically defend and that would set a good example to the non-nuclear states.

To summarize:

Kennedy wanted to make a deal with Khrushchev to at least stop nuke testing, and without testing, it is difficult to develop new nukes.
However, Kennedy was killed and Khrushchev was forced out of power before such a deal could be made.

Carter wanted to substantially cut the total number of nuclear weapons (to about 200 on submarines), but Détente was breaking down and he never really pursued the plan.

Gorbachev wanted to reduce the number of nukes by 50% and institute a Test Ban Treaty, but Reagan was too much of an anti-Communist to make such a deal.

Now that the USSR is gone and things are so factionalized, it is more difficult than ever to really reduce, let alone eliminate, nukes.

Ugh!

 

[Elind]

It sure is a shame that the major nuclear powers have every really developed the nerve to actually make any serious cuts in nuclear weapons. Even if the total number was greatly reduced and new testing was banned, then that would at least be position that we could logically defend and that would set a good example to the non-nuclear states.

What's a serious cut to you? Reducing them by over half, I believe is a pretty good start, and what testing are you talking about? When was the last nuclear test conducted, other than by Pakistan or India?

If you kept only 200 on missiles (I don't think we have 200 balistic missiles on the ready anyway, unless you propose 20 MIRVs per missile), then your deterent options are basically limited to strategic strikes against major cities only using ballistic missiles only. Is that really what you would rather see if it ever came to their use, as opposed to limited demonstrations or tactical weapons against limited military targets on land or at sea? We would never use them simply against population centers, so doing as you suggest amounts to unilateral disarmament. I can hear Kim whatshisname applauding you right now.