Do nations have the right to bear nuclear arms?

[BurtWorm]

Why is it illegal for countries other than those approved by the US to defend themselves by having nuclear weapons? Would it not make more sense to allow nations that want them to put their nuclear weapons programs on the table, in the light of day, to prevent the kinds of world crises secret prgrams often lead to? It should still be illegal to use these weapons, but if having them leads to stalemates between enemies because of mutually assured destruction, then isn't that better than conditions that lead to secret acquisition of NBC weapons?

[da_chimperor]

1. I totally agree

That's why all that 'let's get Syria next' talk after Iraq fell really got under my skin. They hadn't signed anything agreeing to not produce WMD's, and as a sovereign nation they have the same right as the US to posses them. The 'we can do anything we want so fuck the world' attitude really has to go. The US is a sovereign nation like any other, despite the fact we're the most powerful. From living abroad all these years, I know the one thing that the rest of the world dislikes most about the US is our often hypocritical way of dealing with the rest of the world. If we want to be loved again, that really needs to change.

[BurtWorm]

3. This was occurring to me as I read an article about What to Do about Iran

in the NY Times today. Does anyone seriously believe Iran wants a nuclear weapons program for offensive purposes? I'm sure there are a lot of twits on the right who believe that, but I think what's really at the heart of US objections to Iran's having a weapon is that it makes it that much more difficult for us to fuck around with their internal politics.

[qb]

2. Yes, as long as businesses are allowed to post "We prohibit nuclear

arms in these premises."

[yellowcanine]

4. No but I think they should arm nuclear bears so terrorists don't use them

to make a bearskin nuke.

[da_chimperor]

5. Nuclear bears, huh?

Don't those live on three mile island?

[Bandit]

6. Kind of puts the Hypocrisy onto those wanting Assault Weapons

for all Americans but not Nukes for all countries. If they say it is all a matter of degree then their whole argument for Assault Weapons falls apart. I would love to see a Nuclear weapon free world and also an Assault Weapon Free World as well. But I'm not worried about the size of my ?????

[BurtWorm]

7. Exactly.

Well said.

[TexasSissy]

8. Isn't that sort of like saying, "Why make it illegal to murder someone?

All that does is make murderers hide their dastardly deeds. It'd be better if everyone put his bodies...er, cards....on the table for all to see."

Countries should either be allowed to have them or not, whatever the rationale for either, but a reason for them to have them is NOT because they'd get them in secret, anyway. Just my opinion.

[BurtWorm]

9. Having a weapon is not the same as killing someone.

Your analogy does not work. It does not follow that having a nuclear weapon implies future use of it. Consider the history of the cold war. True, the Bushists are trying to figure out a way to make use of a nuclear weapon less stigmatized, as long as it's the US using it. But would they be trying to make this argument if countries the US wanted to nuke had their own weapons? I would think not.

[TexasSissy]

11. Yes, having any sort of weapon implies future use of it. Ask

a scientist who works on weapons inventions. Saw it in a documentary on the bombings of Japan in WWII. He said that the use of the bomb was inevitable. It's like a toy. You don't make it and expect it to sit on a shelf. You're going to use it sooner or later. That's the whole point.

I don't know that ANY country should have nuke weapons, but since the technology is here, and we use nuclear power for energy, I guess there's no avoiding that countries will have nukes.

[BurtWorm]

15. The point is, a few countries are dictating who can and can't have them

but why should these countries control that question, especially when they, themselves, have nukes? What naked hypocrisy! What's good for the US is evil for Iran? Really? Would the US even consider waging war against Iran if Iran legally possesed nukes? I don't think so. But the Bushists could easily start a war using the excuse that they want to prevent Iran from getting nukes.

[TexasSissy]

24. There's some sort of accord or agreement about

that among the industrialized countries of the world. Most countries have signed on to it. I'm not sure what the agreement says. But that's what gives the U.N. authority to request info from countries about their nuke programs.

[Spazito]

10. In a word, YES, imo...

It amazes and disgusts me that there seems to be a belief the US and Israel can dictate who can have nuclear weapons. Who the hell gave them the authority to dictate to ANYONE?

[ilovenicepeople]

13. YES

but only if your nation is being threatened by a rouge nuclear power.PEACE thru nuclear deterrence.

[RivetJoint]

14. If they signd the Treaty on Non-proliferation

of Nuclear Weapons, then yes it is "illegal" for them to posses nuclear weapons, UNLESS they had them BEFORE the treaty was in effect (those nations that had them, are "allowed" to keep them).

Iran is a signatory.

[Bandit]

16. I seem to recall the US signed a few Treaties that Bush*

just walked away from without any congressional approval. Start I and Start II just as examples. I would suggest that if Bush* could do this any Foreign Leader could do so as well.

[RivetJoint]

19. We didn't walk away from START

neither I nor II

[BurtWorm]

22. Bush walked away from the ABM

that much I know for certain. His people want to proliferate one of the classic destabilizers of the cold war, the anti-missile missiles.

[RivetJoint]

23. Yep

The ABM is not START, though. Plus, under ABM we are allowed to have two missile defense systems. Even the Soviets had ABMs protecting Moscow.

[BurtWorm]

17. I think the whole concept of nonproliferation needs to be rethought.

It's a different world from when it was first negotiated. When there were two superpowers, it made sense to restrict the spread of these weapons. But now that there's only one superpower, it might make more sense to view these weapons differently. I think this subject should be debated, in any case. If the legitimacy of torture or empire can be debated, this subject certainly should as well.

[RivetJoint]

20. Sure

Right now it is in effect "indefinitely." I'm sure the UN could always propose relooking it. Nothing wrong with debating the issue again.

[MacDo]

12. No nukes for anyone

But I know this will never be the case. Other countries will feel that obtaining nukes is the only way to protect themselves from people like Bush.

[951]

18. I agree there is no need for such horrific weapons

[skjpm]

21. Should individual Americans be allowed to own nuclear weapons?

Isn't that a right protected by the 2nd Amendent? If you don't think citizens should on nukes, then you are for gun control. You just draw the line at a different place. I wish the gun nuts would admit that.

[GreenPartyVoter]

25. I'm with you