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.

 

States' Rights: Why can't WE ban nuclear weapons?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Yes, the question is: why can't U.S. States ban nuclear weapons?

To give it some context:

Lately, I've been thinking a lot more about the world's nuclear arsenal. Plain and simple, I no longer understand the practicality of such weapons. Don't we have bombs which are large enough? Surely, any one nation's use of a nuclear weapon would be, if not the end of the world, the true beginning of the end. Why use a weapon that is sure to have detrimental effects on the entire planet?

Do not the guns and bombs we have suffice? From an article on Commondreams.org:



AP describes the Blu-82, nicknamed "Big Blue," as being "as large as a Volkswagen beetle, but heavier." Digging for the less charming details, one finds that the bomb got its other name, "Daisy Cutter," because of the shape of the crater it leaves -- and that it has the ability to clear a 3-mile-long path. Dropped from huge transport aircraft, "Big Blue" releases a cloud of inflammable ammonium nitrate, aluminum dust, and polystyrene slurry which is then ignited by a detonator. The result is a firestorm that incinerates an area the size of five football fields, consumes oxygen, and creates a shock-wave and vacuum pressure that destroys the internal organs of anyone within range.


That's not even our largest one.

Of course, there was the recent 47-nation nuclear summit which was "the largest international meeting hosted by a US president in more than 60 years."

Thing is, I don't feel any safer. Do you? I got to thinking further, and given the political climate in the United States, I don't see our federal government ever taking the lead in eradicating nuclear weapons.

So, that all said, why can't states ban the manufacture and/or the storage of nuclear weapons on their turf? Is it because a military institution is not under the jurisdiction of state law? Why not then just ban the manufacturing of nuclear weapons? States ban stuff all the time.

States Seeking to Ban Mandatory Health Insurance

Copper Brake Pads are Banned

Nebraska Passes Controversial Abortion Ban

States Eye Ban on Public Release of 911 Calls

Half of States Ban Tobacco Use in Prison

I'll leave you with 50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons, published by the Brookings Institute.

Among some of the more alarming, number 44:



44. Number of U.S. nuclear bombs lost in accidents and never recovered: 11


Thanks for reading.




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
The only reason i can imagine the elite countries such as America and Russia are agreeing to cut them down. is because they have made a new weapon,.

a much more powerful one.

maybe one that involves space lasers.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Because Southern states lost the Civil War in 1865.
Second line.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by MR BOB, Cincinnatus
 


Why then, are states not allowed to ban nuclear weapons, if they have authority to ban a whole slew of other things?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Because it would mostly likely lose your bid for re-election?

If all 50 states bannded then, and big if, you would still have the weapons stored on federal property in their silos, bases, etc.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Awory
Because it would mostly likely lose your bid for re-election?

If all 50 states bannded then, and big if, you would still have the weapons stored on federal property in their silos, bases, etc.


Getting nearer to the answer I think I'm looking for. Why would someone lose their bid for re-election? The eradication of nukes is logical. Isn't it?

So, is that it? Federal property? Every chunk of land housing a nuclear weapon is actually owned by the Federal government? Answering to no one?

Back to it, then, and screw federal property: why can't states then ban the manufacture of nukes, or manufactured parts that would be used in nukes?

I can't find any record of this having been tried before.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
The main reason why a state can not ban nuclear weapons, is cause you end up with 2 problems.
1) If a State did that, then how could they verify anything on a military instillation? All Military Instillitations are considered federal property and they have the authroization to use deadly force. Under those guidelines, they military can keep any kind of weapon on any military instillation at any time and the state has nothing that it can do with such.
2) Where do you propose to keep all of the weapons? Someone has to be willing to hold them in their state and then how could you ensure the absolute security of such? With all of the nuclear weapons in the US arsenal spred out, it is easier for the different branches of the military to keep control over such, as each has protocals that are required for such.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
The USA can't simply wish away nuclear weapons — that genie is OUT of the bottle, and there's always going to be a handful of nations out there who are nuclear-capable.

If we ban nuclear weapons, disarm our nuclear missile subs, and eliminate our entire nuclear stockpile, that doesn't mean dick, particularly with China and India and North Korea and Pakistan and Israel and Russia still hoarding those weapons.

And, frankly, you cannot trust ANY of those nations to completely disarm.

For the USA to unilaterally disarm and eliminate its nuclear capability is more than merely stupid, it's suicidal.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Elepheagle
 


Because they can exercise their police power against their own citizens, not the federal government or property of the federal government. Although I read somewhere about a county trying to take back land from the feds recently...



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
The main reason why a state can not ban nuclear weapons, is cause you end up with 2 problems.
1) If a State did that, then how could they verify anything on a military instillation? All Military Instillitations are considered federal property and they have the authroization to use deadly force. Under those guidelines, they military can keep any kind of weapon on any military instillation at any time and the state has nothing that it can do with such.
2) Where do you propose to keep all of the weapons? Someone has to be willing to hold them in their state and then how could you ensure the absolute security of such? With all of the nuclear weapons in the US arsenal spred out, it is easier for the different branches of the military to keep control over such, as each has protocals that are required for such.


1) I suppose that would have to be addressed; but again, if because of federal jurisdiction the actual weapons couldn't be banned, as they're stored on federal property, why not ban the manufacture?
2) I haven't been able to come up with all of the answers just yet. OP still looking for the reason why it cannot be done via states rights.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
The USA can't simply wish away nuclear weapons — that genie is OUT of the bottle, and there's always going to be a handful of nations out there who are nuclear-capable.

If we ban nuclear weapons, disarm our nuclear missile subs, and eliminate our entire nuclear stockpile, that doesn't mean dick, particularly with China and India and North Korea and Pakistan and Israel and Russia still hoarding those weapons.

And, frankly, you cannot trust ANY of those nations to completely disarm.

For the USA to unilaterally disarm and eliminate its nuclear capability is more than merely stupid, it's suicidal.

— Doc Velocity


I believe banning nukes would mean a hell of a lot more than "dick".

Well, Doc, I guess I'd say that having the nuclear arsenal that we currently have is MORE suicidal than unilaterally disarming. Why, in your mind, is disarming suicidal? Do nuclear weapons truly offer you a unique sense of security, one that you'd surely miss if it weren't there? Did you check out the other non-nuclear bombs that I linked, and the destruction they are capable of?

Having nukes is suicidal, not getting rid of them.

My viewpoint to counter yours. Thanks for the input.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Many communities have banned nuclear weapons, material and research. No state would ban nuclear activities because they would lose their military bases and the income they generate.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Probably, because banning nuclear weapons is naive and idiotic at this point.

It is very chic these days, to place all responsibility for fear, negativity and the sorry state of our world, directly on the shoulders of the USA. But, the truth is, if we disarmed, you would probably have just enough time to finish eating a hamburger, before we were bombed into the stone age by somebody else.

Wake up people! We are NOT the "Bad Guys". Regardless of what you are being programmed to believe.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by UruFist]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
The producing and housing of nuclear weapons are done on federal land. State laws do not apply.

Think of it like this.

A State has banned automatic weapons. No citizen or person visiting can have an automatic weapon. Now lets say that state has a military post within its borders.

That military post is federal land and does have automatic weapons and even fires them on a daily basis. The state law does not affect them at all.

I'm certain state laws do prohibit nuclear weapons, can't go making any type of bombs that I know of in any state.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by UruFist
 


As I did with a previous poster, I'll flip you around:

Having as many nukes as the world has is idiotic and naive.

As to your next assertion that I'd just have enough time to finish my cow burger before we were bombed into the Stone Age? That makes no sense whatsoever. When was the last time we were threatened with a nuclear weapon by a world government?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Many communities have banned nuclear weapons, material and research. No state would ban nuclear activities because they would lose their military bases and the income they generate.


But what if all states said no, thank you, we've got large enough bombs the way it is? Or are the only options:

1) Sit on the arse and pray the world governments will come to reason and common sense

-OR-

2) Understand that the world is a much, much safer place with thousands of nuclear warheads, of which it would take only one to destroy the planet.

#2 doesn't seem like "self-defense" to me.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I think the simple answer to this question lies within the US Constitution itself, in particularly the Preample and Article 1 Section 8 which states:

Source




Preample
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America.

Article 1
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general
Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;

Which continues to say:

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;


I think it is pretty easy to see that the US Constitution gives the Federal government the right to provide for the common defense, and this would include nuclear weapons, or any weapon that is manufactured to serve a wartime purpose.

This does not mean I do not understand where you are coming from, it just means that the common defense is delegated to the Federal government and the States cannot dictate which weapons are used and which are not, such as Miracle Man mentioned regarding automatic weapons on military bases.

Personally, I think that if we would go back to the leaders having to lead the charge into battle, they may think twice before doing it. Then it never stopped it before, so what do I know?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Wayne60
 


Thank you, Wayne. This is more along the lines of what I was looking for.




NARRATOR: But is the notion of a world without nuclear weapons purely hypothetical? Some people are convinced that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and can't be put back in. Noam Chomsky, however, dismisses this as mindless rhetoric.

Dr. CHOMSKY: The genie out of the bottle doesn't mean anything. The doomsday machine genie is out of the bottle, too.

[Film Clip from "Dr. Strangelove" (Columbia Pictures)]

Dr. CHOMSKY: Doomsday machines are possible. Does that mean we have to have a doomsday machine? I mean, these are just mind-less claims. Just the fact that it's possible to do something wildly destructive doesn't mean you must have it available.


Source: report by the Center for Defense Information on the need for nuclear weapons.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Elepheagle
 


An elementary look at the history of the founding of the USA would tell you that from the get go Constitutionally the Federal government is and was responsible for the defence of the US , signing of treaty's and the issue of currency .

Cheers xpert11.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Ok, I get it. Defense, defense, defense!!! I get it! You are right, oh wise xpert, that an "elementary" look at the constitution would tell you all about DEFENSE.

Not nuclear weapons. Not about what sort of say we the people have regarding HOW we are defended.

Out of 14 posts now, what, TWO are on topic and actually address the specifics of my original question? Please read before you post.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join