It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does the US have the right to decide which countries can have nuclear weapons?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Then why would pulling out of the treaty not be acceptable?




posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
Well if that country is going against certain agreements such as the NPT, someone has to step in and take the reigns. Who else can do it? No one at the moment besides the US. The US has the means to apply great economic and political pressure. The international community doesnt seem to give a rats ass about enforcing its own policies and agreements.


UM, BS?

The United States never agreed to the NPT. Why should we enforce it?



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arcane Demesne

The United States never agreed to the NPT. Why should we enforce it?


I thought we were written into the treaty as one of the existing nuclear powers and didn't need to agree. Either way, good point.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by phoenixhasrisin

I thought we were written into the treaty as one of the existing nuclear powers and didn't need to agree. Either way, good point.


Thanks.


I'm not sure who wrote the NPT, I thought it was the UN...All I know is that America and Israel are the only Nuclear Powers who didn't sign. North Korea broke the treaty, so they're no longer a part of it. But Iran did sign it, and so far, there's no proof they are breaking it.

Onto the OP again.

Now I understand people's concern about...'oh, but look at what they are saying! It would be horrible if they got the bomb, how can you let them?!'

Well, that's a good perspective to have, but remember people. You can't perform preemptive strikes, and expect to have everyone love you for it.

That would be like hitting your child for no reason, and when he/she asks you why, you say it's for something he might do later. It makes no sense, especially for a civilized (supposedly) nation like the U.S.

I don't think the U.S. has a right to police the world. Not because it's 'morally wrong' or because it's 'bad foreign policy', I just don't believe that we as humans can tell another human what's best for them on a national scale. Which is why I endorse Anarchy in the first place.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Do you think that the US government would stop developing any weapons technology because some other country told us to? Hell no. Why? It none of their business what we do. Likewise, its none of our business what they do. Its really quite that simple.

Sure you can get into the what ifs and how abouts but the bottom line remains the same. Sovereign nations are just that, sovereign.

Now, if we don't want someone to get a specific type of technology (ie nuclear weapons) we can do whatever is politically necessary (sanctions, embargos, etc) to stop them. We do NOT have the right to declare war oevr the issue. Up to the point that we have undeniable proof of a genuine threat to our own security. And, if we spent less time and resources sticking our nose in where it doesn't belong we would have better intelligence gathering resources.

Case in point - Iraq. We went to war with two things in mind 1. finding and destroying WMDs that could be turned against us and 2. "freeing" the Iraqi people.

As for #1 we all know how that went. As for #2, when did the Iraqi people ask us to help them gain their freedom? I'm pretty sure that there are enough people living in Iraq that, if they really wanted to, could have overthrown Saddam's regime. In the original gulf war, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Kuwait was our ally. We went to war to defend them. See the difference? As long as Saddam was playin is his own sandbox, we should have left him alone.

Oh sure you can go on and on about what a threat Saddam was (to his people) and how he was backing terrorists - hell who isn't? The CIA trained Bin Laden to fight. We had a specific target - Osama Bin Laden. ALL of our resources should have been trained on finding him and his people and sending them to Allah.

Now we have Iran and North Korea. Neither of which should we (nor do we have the right to) do anything to. What we do have the right to do is focus on protecting ourselves. They want to build ICBM's? Let 'em. We should spend every dollar that would go into fighting them on technology that would make their weapons obsolete. We should spend every dollar that might go to humanitarian efforts in those countries on our defense as well. If the governments are THAT corrupt and mistreating the people THAT badly then the people will revolt. Think about it folks - is there a nation on the planets whose civillian population is dwarfed by its government population? Any? I doubt there are even any that come close to a 50/50 split. In the US our armed forces are outnumbered by our civillian population. Maybe not outgunned, but definately outnumbered. And numbers count.

Now, does the United Nations have a right to say who can and who can't have technology of any sort? Only if EVERY country has representation in the UN - bar none for any any reason. Then that body can make laws that govern the course of nations. Until then, no. They are no different from any otherorganization on the planet. Think of it like the United States of Earth. Know what I mean?

Well that's my 2 cents. Maybe its only worth a penny and half now but there it is anyway.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr No One
Do you think that the US government would stop developing any weapons technology because some other country told us to? Hell no. Why? It none of their business what we do.

Of course its our business, they're saying that we are literally 'the devil', what do you think they are going to do to us once they get these weapons?

It doesn't matter what rights the US claims, Iran made a deal with the international community by which it was given nuclear technology, they didn't develop it theirselves, they've been given a technology that the US invented, and were only given it because they gave up the right to have nuke weapons permanently, and agreed, permanently, to give full access to international monitoring agencies.

Iran has no right to nuke weapons, because they gave it up. The whole idea of giving out this technology was to prevent countries from making weapons out of it, and to give them what was thought to be a fantastic new energy source that would modernize even the most backwards of countries. So no, they DON"T get to take that, and use it to make nukes, period. If they do, then we should destroy them. They know this, so its really up to them to decide if they want to get destroyed or not.



posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
We ratified the NPT in 1970 (and it was Ireland that proposed it initially).

Edit to add: and I almost forgot, you left out India and Pakistan: they didn't sign or ratify, and they are nuclear powers. Apparently whoever lied to you didn't have a problem with those nations though, only with America and Israel (only one of which, i say again, actually failed to sign the treaty). It also bears mentioning that Israel would actually be allowed to have nukes under the treaty if they had ever conducted a test, since they had their weapons before 67. If they had gone nuclear during the 6 days war, they could have signed the treaty with a clean conscience. Ironic, isn't it? (end edit)

Is research a completely foreign concept to those who would rather denounce America than actually focus on the issue at hand, namely nuclear proliferation?

We have been repeatedly accused of violating the treaty via NATO nuclear weapons sharing arrangements, and we've tended to focus on non-proliferation rather than disarmament of existing nuclear powers, which has irked some, but at least on paper, we're party to the treaty.


That being said, the treaty is symbollic. As I have previously explained, our current system of international law (established through treaties) has not yet reached maturity and is fairly toothless. Case in point, any state can simply withdraw from the NPT. The question is, what kind of law do we want the current system to grow into? If we want a binding international law, a precedent needs to be set through action against those who violate certain widely agreed-upon standards of conduct, and if we want fair international law, we're going to have to establish objective criteria for prompting that action from a broad-based international organization.

In order to live up to its objectives, the UN is going to have to start enforcing treaties, even when it's not convenient to the signatories, and, yes, violating the sovereignty of nations who use that sovereignty to threaten others- that's nothing unfamiliar to us on the individual level: police do it to criminals all the time. This is what it will take to create more than convenient respect for international law from all nations (yes, before anyone assumes that I'm an idiot, that does include the United States).

How many of you personally approve of every law you are bound to follow? That's not how the law works, is it? It's the law because most of us have decided to impose it on ourselves and everyone else, and even the people who voted no have to follow it, or else. Or can I just withdraw from the penal code "treaty" and go around setting stuff on fire?

[edit on 11-2-2007 by The Vagabond]



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Those with guns don't want everyone else to have guns then were is the safety in having a gun.

Then we have to get a big non-radiation bomb that we can drop at will with out fear of nuclear fallout.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join