Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When China wanted to develop a nuclear weapon, the nationalistic message was if the Soviets and the Americans have it, why can't China?
Same thing with Iran, North Korea, and any other nation. How come they can't develop nuclear weapons?
The so called non-proliferation treaty is even hypocritically worded. It doesn't say getting rid of nuclear weapons. It says "don't share it." Is that right?
Mod Note: The use of can't refers towards why isn't it permissible rather than a question of not being able.
Frankly, the U.S. believes that North Korea shouldn't have nuclear weapons because it is a totalitarian dictatorship with a history of aggression. Yes, that's essentially the crux of the U.S.'s position on this issue.
Also, Yes, the NPT is certainly an example of a double-standard, which in turn is why exactly Israel, India, and Pakistan all didn't sign and ratify the NPT. (As for North Korea, it withdrew from the NPT back in 2003.)
Them specifically? No, but the U.S. and the West engaged in regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya over the last 15 years!
Very true... North Koreans and Iranians unwillingly starve for the sake of their Nuclear programs because their governments understandably fear for their continued existence and they know nukes are the only realistic way to keep the armies of "The West" from rolling in. Remember the "axis of evil" when both Iran and North Korea were publicly declared "the enemy" by good 'ole G.W. ? That was never rescinded...
Now whether those governments should continue to exist or not is another question... but our own government holds some of the blame for putting the bomb in the hands of possible madmen because they pushed 'em into a corner in the first place.
Needing food or being ignored are not good reasons to launch a nuke, thats why its such an issue for these nations to have nukes. Russia wanted Crimia and there was not a single word about nukes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terryj
This question has been asked ever since other countries have developed nuclear weapons. If you have it why can't I have it? We know the damage a nuclear weapon can inflict upon a peoples and we abhor the destruction it did to Japan, this is why we have chosen never to use it again. Most countries that have nuclear capabilities would only use them as a last resort and not as a preemptive weapon, I feel that N. Korea and Iran would fall under this also. N. Korea only bring these out when they need food or they feel they are being ignored. To use these type of weapons in today's world would be inviting the total destruction of your own country, in one form or another.
Just imagine what would happen if a group like ISIS got it's hands on a nuclear weapon. ISIS would have no hesitation at all on using these weapons even if they had to be delivered via back pack.
The question is, could we trust a country enough to insure they wouldn't allow their weapons to fall into the hands of groups that are like ISIS.
This question has been asked ever since other countries have developed nuclear weapons. If you have it why can't I have it? We know the damage a nuclear weapon can inflict upon a peoples and we abhor the destruction it did to Japan, this is why we have chosen never to use it again. Most countries that have nuclear capabilities would only use them as a last resort and not as a preemptive weapon, I feel that N. Korea and Iran would fall under this also. N. Korea only bring these out when they need food or they feel they are being ignored. To use these type of weapons in today's world would be inviting the total destruction of your own country, in one form or another.
Just imagine what would happen if a group like ISIS got it's hands on a nuclear weapon. ISIS would have no hesitation at all on using these weapons even if they had to be delivered via back pack.
The question is, could we trust a country enough to insure they wouldn't allow their weapons to fall into the hands of groups that are like ISIS.
Wow. You are clearly misguided on NK's intentions. Do you understand how hostile a country NK is? Do you realize that one of our best allies is immediately south of this overtly hostile country? Letting NK have (more) nukes is like giving a gun to a child and telling him to behave.
N Korea simply doesn't need the bomb. No one is threatening them.
South Korea is conducting joint military exercises with the US which
really scares DPRK. They have threatened to use nuclear weapons,
even pre-emptively if necessary.
Very true... North Koreans and Iranians unwillingly starve for the sake of their Nuclear programs because their governments understandably fear for their continued existence and they know nukes are the only realistic ...
Iranians aren't in danger of starving. You might want to read something other than propaganda.
When China wanted to develop a nuclear weapon, the nationalistic message was if the Soviets and the Americans have it, why can't China?
Same thing with Iran, North Korea, and any other nation. How come they can't develop nuclear weapons?
The so called non-proliferation treaty is even hypocritically worded. It doesn't say getting rid of nuclear weapons. It says "don't share it." Is that right?
Mod Note: The use of can't refers towards why isn't it permissible rather than a question of not being able.
It can (and it does). By the same token, other nations can sanction it if it does. Other nations have every much right to sanction and use attempts at dissuasion as North Korea does at maintaining a nuclear arsenal, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickerman
I thought they had nuclear weapons. My question is why can North Korea make nuclear bombs and Iran couldn't do it. Also, why could Pakistan and India make nukes and Iran couldn't do even though they have tried for years to make one.
Iran could develop nuclear weapons. They have decided that economic relations with the West and avoiding the political fallout (so to speak) from having nuclear weapons are more attractive than the alternative. North Korea - which positively thrives on isolation and conflict - used a different calculus and came to a different conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress
i am aware that they have nuclear capabilities. my question was more principle and philosophical. indeed, if a few countries can have it, then other countries should be able to have it too.
if you want to look at kim jong un, should people look at American behavior abroad, in iraq, afghanistan, etc.? at least, kim didn't invade another country.
You naively think that international relations are some sort of morality play. It is that context that confuses you. Stop looking at the behavior of states through that distorting prism and things will become less confused for you.
As Will Munny in Unforgiven said - "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it!"
Rather, it is simply - and, frankly, obviously - a case of interests. It is in the interests of pretty much every other country - South Korea, Japan, the U.S., China, and so forth - that North Korea not have nuclear weapons. So these countries have all used various means to attempt to convince North Korea that, on balance, they'd be better off without nukes. Generally, this has failed, for various reasons. Some nations really have little to offer the North (Japan, for instance). Also, the nature and priorities of the North - it perceives possessing nuclear weapons as worth almost any price, and the benefits it perceives are as much domestic (preservation of the regime from internal threats) and foreign (a trump care against regime change).
North Korea has a right under international law to build nuclear weapons. It does not have a right to have other nations trade with it. That is merely a privilege, and will only happen if those other nations choose to do so.
PS - I know you're looking for an American boogeyman with your stance, but it is hardly just the United States. Much of the world has applied sanctions through the UN (where even Russia and China declined to use their veto power). Our Canadian friends have applied sanctions themselves. The EU (of which two member states are nuclear powers) has done so. Japan has applied sanctions, too. And all of these non-nuclear powers don't sanction the U.S. (or the UK, or France, or China, or other nuclear powers). So your big-bad-U.S.-v-poor-North-Korea spin on things hardly tells the story.
In my opinion every nation on Earth has the right to produce nuclear weapons though they can lose that right once they start threatening other nations with annihilation such as Iran does to Israel and North Korea does to South Korea, Japan and the United States.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
