Hypocrisy of the United States

In many threads discussing nukes for Iran and North Korea a common arguement is being used. The arguement is based on "fairness". They argue that it is not right for the United States to demand other countries not have nukes while the US has the largest stockpile in the world.

The first and foremost requirement of the US govt is to do what is best for the citizens of the United States, not what is best for Europe, the middle east, or any other part of the world. I am sure this is what angers the rest of the world but the govt of Iran owes the US nothing either, they should do what is best for their citizens as well. Is it hypocritical for Iran to want nukes but not want to allow Iraq to have any? I believe that a government can only be hypocritical when it places its own citizens in greater danger.

India and Pakistan obtained nukes and there was no war with the US. Mainly because if they used the nukes it would be on each other. If Iran or NK used their nukes it is very likely that it would be inside US borders. That poses a direct threat to American citizens. Any presidential administration would have to deal with this.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this, lets keep it civilized!

Another thing is that these states are signatories to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, so it's against international law that they agreed to for them to possess or build nuclear weapons. It is also stipulated that any peaceful nuclear programs they have be open to international inspections by the IAEA:

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force in March 1970, seeks to inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Its 189 states-parties are classified in two categories: nuclear-weapon states (NWS)—consisting of the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom—and non-nuclear-weapon states (NNWS).1 Under the treaty, the five NWS commit to pursue general and complete disarmament, while the NNWS agree to forgo developing or acquiring nuclear weapons.

With its near-universal membership, the NPT has the widest adherence of any arms control agreement, with only India, Israel, and Pakistan remaining outside the treaty. In order to accede to the treaty, these states must do so as NNWS, since the treaty restricts NWS status to nations that "manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to 1 January 1967." For India, Israel, and Pakistan, all known to possess or suspected of having nuclear weapons, joining the treaty as NNWS would require that they dismantle their nuclear weapons and place their nuclear materials under international safeguards. South Africa followed this path to accession in 1991.

Arms Control Association NPT Factsheet

India, Israel and Pakistan are not signatories and weren't bound by the treaty.

"Under the treaty, the five NWS commit to pursue general and complete disarmament"

How is that coming? It has been 35 years since they promised to destroy their weapons and it has been 15 years since the end of cold war. Does it really take THAT long to destroy nuclear weapons? If they are planning to destroy them then why is Britain spending $25 billion to upgrade its weapons? Why is the US researching nuclear bunker busters? Why is russia anouncing that they are creating a whole new generation of weapons? Is it just so they can destroy it in 10 or so years? If it is I'd say it is a stupid way of wasting money. If they arent they are violating the treaty.

[edit on 3-5-2005 by Sep]

Ok, the reason why Iran is pursing nukes is Israel who have had aprogram since the 80's. The US is major supporter of Israel, it is an american ally somewhat, anyway the US doesnt want a radical regime that does not recognize israel's right to exist. NK has developed nukes and i think the fear is one of two things,
1. shift the balance of power on the korean peninsula 2. nukes launched on japan. The NPT doesn't say anyone will dismantle nukes, it says that, at the time, the countries that already had them. USA, soviet union, france,china,great britain, could keep them as long as they did not help other nations develop nuclear weapons. Countries that sign the treaty get incentives to not develop them. Countries that sign the treaty can legally pursue nuclear energy for power generation under IAEA inspections. so what hypocrisy are we talking about here?

We did agree to SALT treaties( Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty) which was to remove intermediate range missiles from europe, which the US did and i can confirm it as i have seen some of the bunkers in england where some were housed and the bunkers are empty. They did not destroy the nukes just shipped them back to us.

Originally posted by Trustnone
The NPT doesn't say anyone will dismantle nukes, it says that, at the time, the countries that already had them. USA, soviet union, france,china,great britain, could keep them as long as they did not help other nations develop nuclear weapons.

Mate you should read the treaty before comenting on it. Here is a quote right out of the treaty:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

This just means they agree to engage in "talks" towards the goal of disarament not that the parties must disarm. it's ok the wording is meant purposely to have "loopholes".

I honestly think neither Iran or NK have any intention to use their nukes if they actually have any or get nay in the future. To use them against Israel, Sth Korea or anyone would be political suicide and their countries in turn will be polverised... no questions asked.

I think they are trying to aquire them as some political muscle and to use as deterants. The way the US is going toppling governments that they dont agree with, NK and Iran have reason to be paranoid.

Also i think the US has been a little over paranoid since 9/11.. i doubt whether NK or Iran have the capabilities of striking the US with their weaponary.

Both countries know that the US stretched right now in Iraq and a conventional ground war would be a big strain on the US, maybe they're worried they US will resort to nukes on them, or maybe they're trying to lure the US into a ground war.

Whatever the reason, i really doubt there is much to worry about, the rulers may be harsh and tyranical, but they arent stupid, and the last thing they want is a return nuke with the stars and stripes painted on it.

Also the Us and Russia, and the UK have all violated the treaty by updating their arsenals anyway... and the US Star Wars missile defense and Son of Star Wars system are also in violation of the treaty... the Hypocrisy there is obvious.

[edit on 3-5-2005 by specialasianX]

The problem is the USA takes a Las Vegas approach to regimes. The US is happy to overlook the fact that Pakistan is a dictatorship because the US is using Pakistan as a base for there ops in Afghanistan.
How many democracies did the US overthrow in the cold war?
The lesson is that if you keep putting money on the same bet you will eventually lose. Short term gain is a cop out at best the US is still making bets while trying to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq heres hoping the US dosnt lose any bets before democracy succeeds in those two countries.

Originally posted by JoshGator54
The first and foremost requirement of the US govt is to do what is best for the citizens of the United States, not what is best for Europe, the middle east, or any other part of the world. I am sure this is what angers the rest of the world but the govt of Iran owes the US nothing either, they should do what is best for their citizens as well. Is it hypocritical for Iran to want nukes but not want to allow Iraq to have any? I believe that a government can only be hypocritical when it places its own citizens in greater danger.

US does have the right to keep its borders safe and I am sure the world agrees. But so do the other countries and that's what the US should recognize. As Trustnoone said Iran needs nuclear weapons to counter the Israeli threat. Do you think Israel would have attacked Iran's nuclear facilities if Iran already had nuclear weapons. If Iran had nuclear weapons, middle east would be a much safer place in terms of a full scale war breaking out. Israel wont attck Iran, Iran wont attack Israel and status quo would be maintained.

And yes, I do believe it would be hypocritical of Iran if it develops it's own weapons at the same time objects that Iraq should have their own.

Originally posted by TrustnoneThe NPT doesn't say anyone will dismantle nukes, it says that, at the time, the countries that already had them. USA, soviet union, france,china,great britain, could keep them as long as they did not help other nations develop nuclear weapons. Countries that sign the treaty get incentives to not develop them. Countries that sign the treaty can legally pursue nuclear energy for power generation under IAEA inspections. so what hypocrisy are we talking about here?

These treaties are legally worthless. Every country wiggles out of them whenever it suites their interest. US is right there among the worst offenders of international treaties. Also, I think we gave up the right to persuade other nations to follow NPT the day pentagon considered a nuclear war against Non-Nuclear Nations....... That's hypocricy as far as I am concerned.
www.ceip.org...



[edit on 3-5-2005 by Quake]

Originally posted by specialasianX
I honestly think neither Iran or NK have any intention to use their nukes if they actually have any or get any in the future. To use them against Israel, Sth Korea or anyone would be political suicide and their countries in turn will be polverised... no questions asked.

But if they are in the process of being polverised by the US or any other nation, what then?

I think they are trying to aquire them as some political muscle and to use as deterants. The way the US is going toppling governments that they dont agree with, NK and Iran have reason to be paranoid.

But if acquiring them puts your country in more danger how does that achieve political muscle?

Originally posted by xpert11
The problem is the USA takes a Las Vegas approach to regimes. The US is happy to overlook the fact that Pakistan is a dictatorship because the US is using Pakistan as a base for there ops in Afghanistan.
How many democracies did the US overthrow in the cold war?
The lesson is that if you keep putting money on the same bet you will eventually lose. Short term gain is a cop out at best the US is still making bets while trying to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq heres hoping the US dosnt lose any bets before democracy succeeds in those two countries.

Talk of bringing democracy is nice, but I doubt the administration really cares what govt is there as long as it is not hostile to American interests. That seems to be the goal when dealing with all countries.

Originally posted by Quake

US does have the right to keep its borders safe and I am sure the world agrees. But so do the other countries and that's what the US should recognize. As Trustnoone said Iran needs nuclear weapons to counter the Israeli threat. Do you think Israel would have attacked Iran's nuclear facilities if Iran already had nuclear weapons. If Iran had nuclear weapons, middle east would be a much safer place in terms of a full scale war breaking out. Israel wont attck Iran, Iran wont attack Israel and status quo would be maintained.

And yes, I do believe it would be hypocritical of Iran if it develops it's own weapons at the same time objects that Iraq should have their own.

If it were just between Israel and Iran I would agree, but it isn't. Iran wants Jews out of "occupied Palestine" they don't want that area to be glowing with radiation. They want to occupy the holy lands not destroy it with nuclear weapons. So why would they need nuclear weapons? To attack, what they consider to be the real stregth of Israel, the United States. Therefore it is a direct threat to the United States for Iran to be nuclear powers.

Originally posted by JoshGator54
If it were just between Israel and Iran I would agree, but it isn't. Iran wants Jews out of "occupied Palestine" they don't want that area to be glowing with radiation. They want to occupy the holy lands not destroy it with nuclear weapons. So why would they need nuclear weapons? To attack, what they consider to be the real stregth of Israel, the United States. Therefore it is a direct threat to the United States for Iran to be nuclear powers.

Probably, the same reason why Israel needs nuclear weapons. All it's enemies are in their immediate vicinity, and if they ever use nuclear weapons the radiation will most likely effect them too. But still Israel has nuclear weapons. It just gives them a paper superiority. The right to say: If I die, you die with me. MAD can be a very effective equalizer.

How do you think Iran would launch nuclear weapons in US? It simply does not have capability to reach US borders....



[edit on 3-5-2005 by Quake]

Sorry, Double Post


[edit on 3-5-2005 by Quake]

[edit on 3-5-2005 by Quake]

Talk of bringing democracy is nice, but I doubt the administration really cares what govt is there as long as it is not hostile to American interests. That seems to be the goal when dealing with all countries.

I think the US is spending brief amounts of time in rehab.
Bush and his cronies took the domino theroy and repackaged it for democracy in the middle east. When it comes to Africa and other thrid world places around the globe you are indeed correct.

You have voted JoshGator54 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Hope you stay around.

[edit on 3-5-2005 by xpert11]

Originally posted by Quake

Probably, the same reason why Israel needs nuclear weapons. All their enemies are in their immediate vicinity, and if they ever use nuclear weapons the radiation will most likely effect them too. But still Israel has nuclear weapons. It just gives them a paper superiority. The right to say: If I die, you die with me. MAD can be a very effective equalizer.

How do you think Iran would launch nuclear weapons in US? It simply does not have capability to reach US borders....

I agree with a lot of what you say. I could argue that a nuclear strike on Tehran would not cause any radiation to come near Israel but I don't know the weather patterns of the area, etc.

The only way Iran could reach within US borders would be with terrorist tactics, smuggling on a cargo ship or something like that. But a nuke used against our troops in Iraq or a carrier group staged in the Persian Gulf could be devestating to the United States.

With the doctrine of MAD I agree that it would exist between Israel and Iran but between Iran and the US it just wouldn't exist.

By the way thank you everyone who is posting for keeping the discussion at an intelectual level and not stooping to partisan arguements!

Originally posted by xpert11

You have voted JoshGator54 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Hope you stay around.

[edit on 3-5-2005 by xpert11]

Thanks! I plan on it.

Originally posted by Trustnone
This just means they agree to engage in "talks" towards the goal of disarament not that the parties must disarm.

it's ok the wording is meant purposely to have "loopholes".

You can look at it two ways. One way is the way you look at it, and one way is the way I look at it. Here is what it says again:

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date "

I think that was done before and the arms races ended. and now for the second part:

"and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

This part hasnt been done. Until all the parties to the treaty have done their share, have had talks, have stopped making nuclear weapons, have started plans to destroy them in masses, then they can say that they have stuck to their part of the treaty. If they dont they have no right to tell others to stick to it.

With the doctrine of MAD I agree that it would exist between Israel and Iran but between Iran and the US it just wouldn't exist.

MAD has its flaws if one side has good intel they could lanuch nukes against key targets and destory the enemys ablity to lanch a counter attack. The reason that MAD succeed in the Cold war was because of the sheer number of targets and the geographic size of the USA and Soviet Union.

I have nothing against the likes of the USA and the Soviet Union reducing the amount of nukes in there stockpiles. What concerns me is what happens to the nukes when they are removed from the frontlines in the likes of the soviet union where corrupation is wide spread.

Originally posted by JoshGator54

The only way Iran could reach within US borders would be with terrorist tactics, smuggling on a cargo ship or something like that.

Shipping a full scale bomb would be next to impossible. However suitcase bombs are a possibility.

I do not know if nuclear material can be traced back to its source of origin? If, it can I am sure no country in the world would plant a suitcase nuclear bomb in the US, simply because US would annihilate them.

Also, do Iranians have the technology to manufacture suitcase bombs? How difficult are they to manufacture?

But a nuke used against our troops in Iraq or a carrier group staged in the Persian Gulf could be devestating to the United States.

They would not need a nuke to attack a carrier group, I guess it would be an overkill. Moreover, there is no way Iran would go on a full frontal nuke attack on US troops. They know better than to commit suicide.

With the doctrine of MAD I agree that it would exist between Israel and Iran but between Iran and the US it just wouldn't exist.

True....Except for Russia no country can claim MAD status with US


[edit on 3-5-2005 by Quake]