Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
reepicheep

Bans imposed on nuclear weaponry

Recommended Posts

I think it's completely reasonable for the US to want to prevent countries that hate the US (NK, Iran, etc.) from obtaining nuclear weapons. In addition, I think it's important as humans to prevent these same powers that want these weapons so they can also use them against countries such as South Korea and Bahrain.

But why should that give the US the right to keep their weapons? And why should the US be allowed to impose sanctions on countries that are separate from them? I'm not asking what is the 'right' thing to do, because obviously NK + nuclear weapons = bad news, but isn't it hypocritical of the US to have weapons while preventing other countries from having them? (And again, replace 'US' with any generic country, I'm not hating on the US here)

 

Well for one despite it's faults the US is a stable country that elects stable leaders from both sides of the aisle.

 

Not only that the US only uses it's nuclear weapons as a last and final resort. It doesn't rush to launch them off and the first sign of conflict.

Edited by Emo Nemo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's completely reasonable for the US to want to prevent countries that hate the US (NK, Iran, etc.) from obtaining nuclear weapons. In addition, I think it's important as humans to prevent these same powers that want these weapons so they can also use them against countries such as South Korea and Bahrain.

But why should that give the US the right to keep their weapons? And why should the US be allowed to impose sanctions on countries that are separate from them? I'm not asking what is the 'right' thing to do, because obviously NK + nuclear weapons = bad news, but isn't it hypocritical of the US to have weapons while preventing other countries from having them? (And again, replace 'US' with any generic country, I'm not hating on the US here)

 

Well for one despite it's faults the US is a stable country that elects stable leaders from both sides of the aisle.

 

Not only that the US only uses it's nuclear weapons as a last and final resort. It doesn't rush to launch them off and the first sign of conflict.

I think that those are both things that can be disputed. The US isn't truly stable right now. That being said, it is much more stable than North Korea.

 

The first nuke might have been a final resort and saved (American) lives, but they sure had no problem dropping that second bomb when the Japanese might have surrendered already. I can't argue whether that second bomb was necessary, but they were pretty quick to just bomb Japan a second time.

 

Still, that doesn't tell me why the US should be allowed to tell North Korea what to do.

Edited by reepicheep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US has done shady things in the past, but it would be insanity to say that US influence and protection doesn't ultimately result in a better world.

I upvoted your post, and like most of it, but strongly disagree with this.

 

The US is one of the world's largest exporters of terrorism. The global rise in terrorism as of late is a direct result of US foreign policy.

 

The US has crippled the stability of multiple countries through their proxy wars.

 

The US has helped give rise to (if not directly caused to formation of) such great organizations as the Taliban.

 

For a people obsessed with the idea of protecting the world, we sure do a shizzlety fudgeing job of it. So what was that about us being trustworthy with nukes?

I never said the US was an absolute good. And the US is by no means working to protect the world, but US (or UK)-influenced countries are generally better off than countries influenced by other powers. Again, would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea? Yes there are exceptions; as I said, the US is by no means an absolute good.

 

But that its influence (military, economic and political) doesn't ultimately benefit other countries is an absurd statement. If US influence is so terrible, why is it that countries like China, Vietnam and the former USSR are mimicking US economic policy by introducing free markets (to the benefit of their populations)? China wouldn't even be close to surpassing us economically if they had not implemented free market reform in the 1980s.

 

Who helped cause the split of North and South Korea? Oh yeah.

Yeah, it's not like the Soviet army entered North Korea and occupied Pyongyang in 1945. Let's blame the US!

 

Who pushed North Korea out of the western sphere of influence? Oh yeah.

North Korea was ever in the Western sphere of influence? lolwut

 

Who supported/funded/militarized the introduction of a theocracy in Iran? Oh yeah.

The US did not support/fund/militarize the introduction of a theocracy in Iran. The US indirectly caused the revolution by funding the tyrannical Pahlavi regime, but it lent the Islamic Revolution no material support.

 

Who supported the Taliban rebellion and funded their rise to power? Oh yeah.

Another false statement. The US financed the Mujahedeen, who were rebels fighting the Soviets during the 1980s. While it's true that some Mujahedeen (such as a dude named Osama Bin Laden) later went on to join the Taliban, the Taliban was not founded until 1995 and has not received US assistance at any point in its existence.

 

The US did. So what was that about people being better off in US-influence countries?

West Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Britain, South Korea, Japan - how do you think these countries would have been doing if there weren't US military bases on their soil during the Cold War? At the very least, they would have become heavily militarized, likely leading to another war in Western Europe at some point. At the very worst, they would have been overrun by the Soviets.

 

Then there's also countries like Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, etc - how do you think their citizens feel about being in NATO (which would not exist without the US) vs being in the Warsaw Pact? Sure, the collapse of Communism in those countries wasn't directly caused by the US but it would be absurd to say that the US didn't play some role in it.

Edited by theking1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US has done shady things in the past, but it would be insanity to say that US influence and protection doesn't ultimately result in a better world.

I upvoted your post, and like most of it, but strongly disagree with this.

 

The US is one of the world's largest exporters of terrorism. The global rise in terrorism as of late is a direct result of US foreign policy.

 

The US has crippled the stability of multiple countries through their proxy wars.

 

The US has helped give rise to (if not directly caused to formation of) such great organizations as the Taliban.

 

 

For a people obsessed with the idea of protecting the world, we sure do a shizzlety fudgeing job of it. So what was that about us being trustworthy with nukes?

 

This is kind of an absurd argument - in the vastly overwhelming majority of cases, people have been better off in US-influenced countries than otherwise. Surely, you wouldn't want to live in North Korea? Or Iran for that matter?

Who helped cause the split of North and South Korea? Oh yeah. Who pushed North Korea out of the western sphere of influence? Oh yeah. Who supported/funded/militarized the introduction of a theocracy in Iran? Oh yeah. Who supported the Taliban rebellion and funded their rise to power? Oh yeah.

 

The US did. So what was that about people being better off in US-influence countries?

 

As for the absurdity of my argument, ethics and morals are relative. I don't see how that could come as any surprise to you.

 

And that somehow makes forbidding and preventing Kimmy from getting nuclear wrong? We can discuss the dodgy parts of US history but how does that make preventing a psychopathic and evil regime getting WMDs wrong?

 

"OMG! I know NK is bad but US bad too look!." That's the argument you're using and it has been used far too many times. Any person who says "yes but" when it comes to the evil that comes from North Korea is simply blind and apathetic to the plight of those people living there and who are subjected to brutal torture and mass murder.

 

This regime is evil. It is pure evil. The shady past of US foreign policy in no way stacks up to the atrocities commited by that brutal regime and it is a great disrespect to the victims to even suggest it.

 

Ethics and morals are relative. Geez, that's a cheap way to sheild yourself from any revuke concerning your stance on the issue. You stand there criticizing the US and Western powers for their wrongdoings yet you also go on about morality being relative in your wordview? That's pretty disingenuous.

 

It is indeed not hard hard to argue that NK shouldn't have nukes. Nevertheless, it's still other countries who are imposing this ban. An trade embargo, for example, doesn't really exercise any power over other countries. Banning a country from producing something within its borders, however, is breaching a country's sovereignty.

 

Again, go back to Hitchen's 4 rules. NK has lost their right to sovereignty ages ago. It is crazy and evil.

Edited by Phoenix Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, go back to Hitchen's 4 rules. NK has lost their right to sovereignty ages ago. It is crazy and evil.

But we're judging by the morals of Hitchen's, while we can be fairly certain that North Korea does not, in fact, care about said morals. What you seem to be arguing is 'they do not conform to our morals so they have lost their right to conform to their own morals (or lack of them).'

Another false statement. The US financed the Mujahedeen, who were rebels fighting the Soviets during the 1980s. While it's true that some Mujahedeen (such as a dude named Osama Bin Laden) later went on to join the Taliban, the Taliban was not founded until 1995 and has not received US assistance at any point in its existence.

This counter-argument seems more like it's based on a technicality than anything else, unless the Taliban did not benefit from the US financing the Mujahedeen. I mean, if I invest in somebody who takes that investment to somebody else, I indirectly invested in somebody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This counter-argument seems more like it's based on a technicality than anything else, unless the Taliban did not benefit from the US financing the Mujahedeen. I mean, if I invest in somebody who takes that investment to somebody else, I indirectly invested in somebody else.

 

So? The US had no involvement in funding the Taliban and your point is entirely superfluous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"OMG! I know NK is bad but US bad too look!." That's the argument you're using and it has been used far too many times. Any person who says "yes but" when it comes to the evil that comes from North Korea is simply blind and apathetic to the plight of those people living there and who are subjected to brutal torture and mass murder.

The comment you're replying to was entirely tangential to the debate at hand. I was only responding to theking's assertion that US-influenced countries are better off.

 

As for moral and ethical relativism, that was just something I wanted to throw out there. They don't reflect my personal beliefs or stance on the issue. Just FYI. :P

 

This hasn't been much of a debate so far. I was trying to help stir up some discussion aside from almost everyone posting nearly the same thing.

 

None the less, let's approach this moral relativism from a scientific standpoint rather than your "they're wrong and evil and crazy period no questions asked" method. Let's say morality and ethics are social constructs developed through evolution to aid in the prosperity of the human genome. These traits will have variances just like eye color or arm length. Let's say that ethics and morality assume a normal statistical distribution, like many traits do- most people's will be similar, and grouped together. None the less, there will be people a standard deviation, two standard deviations, three standard deviations away from the norm. Sure the mindset of the DPRK government is incongruous with the normal views, but does that make them wrong? Not necessarily- it just makes them uncommon and different.

 

It could be argued that your approach towards the situation is just as unforgiving (i.e.: religiously rhetorized hate speech) as their claims that we are heathens/infidels/whatever. There is no good, there is no bad. There is no right, there is no wrong. There is only what you believe. To claim that someone else is evil and crazy is to say that just because you believe in something, and just because it may be more common, that it must be right. Nature does not deal with right and wrong. In terms of actual fact, how can you argue anything other than that they are different and you disagree with them?

 

Okay. I can play the relativist, naturalist role. Again, sorry if I over reacted. Didn't realize you were playing devil's advocate. :box:

 

If we are working in your moral framework then the Western powers, which are more economically and politically powerful on the world stage, have every "right" to enforce their worldview on others simply because they are the powerful ones and are capable of doing so.

 

Might makes right in that moral framework so to hell with ethical arguments. The US has more tanks and can whoop NK in a few weeks so that makes them "right". :P

 

Same response goes for reep's post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, as long as they're Communist / a threat to us / a threat to Israel, I don't see any problem with not letting them have nuclear bombs.

Otherwise, let them go about their business.

So you're saying you think self-determination is a load of hokey if you personally disagree with them.

 

But again, why should we suddenly be allowed to impose restrictions on weapons that we have? How is that fair, when they really don't want anything to do with us?

 

I recall the great Christopher Hitchens when he talked about four conditions when a state looses it's soveriegnty. They are...

 

1. Invading a neighboring country

2. Violating the Genocide Convention

3. Harboring terrorists

4. Violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

 

Both countries (Iran and North Korea) have done at least three each. They are run by madmen and fanatics that have refused time and time again to see reason and pose a great risk to the security of the planet and to the lives of countless of human beings. You ask why should we, the civilized world, impose restrictions on such countries. The answer is simple. Why should we not? Why should we bloody not?

 

Would you let a psychopath carry a gun? Is it a fair argument to say the police force has no right to restrict said psychopath from carrying a gun because said police force has guns? I'm not suggest that the US is a perfect white knight in the geo-political scene but come on. Compared to Kimmy and the Ayatollah's?

Oh god, this is why I can't handle talking about foreign policy with Americans (and that's bad, because you're not American).

 

Who gives a flying shizzle if DPRK or Iran get nukes? I mean really?

 

Israel is a stone's throw away and they have ICBMs. China would not aid in retaliation against an American attack on the DPRK. Nukes are not automatic win states, especially not when the actor in question has a handful of nukes, as opposed to 2,500+ (as Russia, China, and the US all do).

 

If Iran becomes nuclear and launches, the British and Israelis will bury them under nukes. If the DPRK becomes nuclear and launches, the US will bury them in nukes.

 

Those countries becoming nuclear is meaningless.

Edited by Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the US and Russia both agree to limit their warheads. Which means the US only deploys about 1,500 of them... and has another 4,000. This is incredibly high compared to other countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those countries becoming nuclear is meaningless.

 

So the deaths of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of innocent citizens is meaningless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those countries becoming nuclear is meaningless.

So the deaths of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of innocent citizens is meaningless?

>implying North Korea or Iran is stupid enough to launch

 

Both countries are well aware that they are hapless in the event of nuclear war, and neither will be fool enough to launch. North Korea is not going to do a test launch because they know the consequences (at least in the short term). Iran is years away from a nuclear weapon and even if they had them, they know that selling them to foreign actors or terrorist actors is sealing a death warrant.

 

These countries may be ruled by nutcakes, but they're not ruled by idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those countries becoming nuclear is meaningless.

So the deaths of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of innocent citizens is meaningless?

>implying North Korea or Iran is stupid enough to launch

 

Both countries are well aware that they are hapless in the event of nuclear war, and neither will be fool enough to launch. North Korea is not going to do a test launch because they know the consequences (at least in the short term). Iran is years away from a nuclear weapon and even if they had them, they know that selling them to foreign actors or terrorist actors is sealing a death warrant.

 

These countries may be ruled by nutcakes, but they're not ruled by idiots.

Let's be honest, what is a Nuclear North Korea going to do to the United States (Arguably their most hated foe). The reason the US government is downplaying this is because if NK wanted to hit the continental US with a nuclear missile they only have one capable of the range. This is the UNHA Rocket which is a carrier rocket AKA satellite launcher. Not going to happen. If NK attacks anything it will be South Korea and possibly an attempt at Japan. IMO it is all a ruse to get more aid from the UN. A nuclear NK may attack and kill people, but would be beheaded with one swift swing of the axe of 'Murica. I must admit the whole Nuclear nations banning nuclear anything in nonnuclear nations is pretty low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those countries becoming nuclear is meaningless.

So the deaths of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of innocent citizens is meaningless?

>implying North Korea or Iran is stupid enough to launch

 

Both countries are well aware that they are hapless in the event of nuclear war, and neither will be fool enough to launch. North Korea is not going to do a test launch because they know the consequences (at least in the short term). Iran is years away from a nuclear weapon and even if they had them, they know that selling them to foreign actors or terrorist actors is sealing a death warrant.

 

These countries may be ruled by nutcakes, but they're not ruled by idiots.

Let's be honest, what is a Nuclear North Korea going to do to the United States (Arguably their most hated foe). The reason the US government is downplaying this is because if NK wanted to hit the continental US with a nuclear missile they only have one capable of the range. This is the UNHA Rocket which is a carrier rocket AKA satellite launcher. Not going to happen. If NK attacks anything it will be South Korea and possibly an attempt at Japan. IMO it is all a ruse to get more aid from the UN. A nuclear NK may attack and kill people, but would be beheaded with one swift swing of the axe of 'Murica. I must admit the whole Nuclear nations banning nuclear anything in nonnuclear nations is pretty low.

Well, the goal is to look tough on nuclear disarmament. It's the same reason that Obama attached a disarmament condition to any MRCA tender deal for a US fighter jet (needless to say, India didn't appreciate that too much). Of course, that ignores that US and Russian nuclear stores are still expanding (albeit at a much more sluggish pace than, say, 1968, to pick a year out of a hat), and there is no real US or Russian commitment to disarmament. But it looks nice to Joe Voter and it helps score votes/approval with the peacenik crowd.

Edited by Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that the United States should not be able to ban other countries from having nuclear weapons just because we think we're the greatest. Really, I don't think anyone should have the power to do so, but if anyone did, it should be left to something like the UN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally think that the United States should not be able to ban other countries from having nuclear weapons just because we think we're the greatest. Really, I don't think anyone should have the power to do so, but if anyone did, it should be left to something like the UN.

The UN? You mean the same UN that started the Israeli conflicts we see today, the UN that started the Kashmir skirmishes, and the UN whose actions gave American politicians the political clout to start a completely pointless war in Iraq?

 

Yeah. I wouldn't trust them with shizzle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention appointing Muammar Gaddafi to its human rights council

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's disappointing that the UN turned into the morass of crap that it did. If the entry requirements had been appropriately strict it probably wouldn't have been so bad at peacekeeping as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally think that the United States should not be able to ban other countries from having nuclear weapons just because we think we're the greatest. Really, I don't think anyone should have the power to do so, but if anyone did, it should be left to something like the UN.

The UN? You mean the same UN that started the Israeli conflicts we see today, the UN that started the Kashmir skirmishes, and the UN whose actions gave American politicians the political clout to start a completely pointless war in Iraq?

 

Yeah. I wouldn't trust them with shizzle.

 

What I meant by that is that it should be left to a group of countries so that it's a decision agreed upon by many more than one country, not just a single country like the US. That's why I said "something like the UN."

Edited by cash money95

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter so much which countries have and do not have nuclear weaponry. What matters is their willingness to sell them (or enough components to easily make one) to third parties who are not interested in anything other than terrorism on a large scale. This is why I feel bans on nuclear weapons are placed upon certain countries. Not because they are likely to use them, but because they are very likely to sell them to third parties which would be glad to use them. There are few people in this world crazy enough to be willing to kill their entire country by striking first with nuclear weapons. I doubt there will ever be a nuclear war between countries simply because there is too much at stake for there to be. However, when a third party which is not a country enters to problem, there may well be a nuclear war. Or at least, the possibility of a nuclear war goes up. ~John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sales of nuclear weapons to any kind of foreign actor is literal geopolitical suicide. Every Western intelligence agency is capable of tracking any nuclear weapon to a source reactor. Every reactor leaves a chemical fingerprint that is immutable. The weapon will inevitably be tracked back to its source, and that country will be glowing by the end of the afternoon.

 

This is why I tell people that the idea of Iran selling nukes to Hezbollah is pure lunacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.