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.
The answer is simple, because no one should want anyone else to have a weapon that can harm you. Of course some are going to get them, but you certainly should do your best to stop it.
It would be great for the US if we were th eonly nation with this technology. If you are looking at it from a filter of world justice, everyone should have them. If you are looking at it from self preservation, you want no one else to have them. Its not hard to understand.
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 need to brush up on history, because that is exactly what N Korea did.
They can't have a nuclear weapon because it would violate the treaty that they signed at the end of the Korean Conflict.
You need to brush up on history, because that is exactly what N Korea did.
They can't have a nuclear weapon because it would violate the treaty that they signed at the end of the Korean Conflict.
1) It wasn't a treaty but the Armistice Agreement.
2) Specifically, it was paragraph 13(d) of the Armistice Agreement:
Quote:
(d) Cease the introduction into Korea of reinforcing combat aircraft, armored vehicles, weapons, and ammunition; provided however, that combat aircraft, armored vehicles, weapons, and ammunition which are destroyed, damaged, worn out, or used up during the period of the armistice may be replaced on the basis piece-for-piece of the same effectiveness and the same type. Such combat aircraft, armored vehicles, weapons, and ammunition shall be introduced into Korea only through the ports of entry enumerated in paragraph 43 hereof. In order to justify the requirements for combat aircraft, armored vehicles, weapons, and ammunition to be introduced into Korea for replacement purposes, reports concerning every incoming shipment of these items shall be made to the MAC and the NNSC; such reports shall include statements regarding the disposition of the items being replaced. Items to be replace which are removed from Korea shall be removed only through the ports of entry enumerated in paragraph 43 hereof. The NNSC, through its Neutral Nations Inspection Teams, shall conduct supervision and inspection of the replacement of combat aircraft, armored vehicles, weapons, and ammunition authorized above, at the ports of entry enumerated in paragraph 43 hereof.
Paragraph 13(d) prevents the introduction of new weapons into the military theater, except to replace equipment on a one-on-one basis. This effectively bans nuclear weapons and missiles from the Korean peninsula.
However, in 1957 the United States informed North Korea that it no longer considered itself bound by the terms of paragraph 13(d). Subsequently, the United States abrogated paragraph 13(d) by deploying nuclear artillery, nuclear ballistic missiles, and nuclear cruise missiles to South Korea.
So it's absurd to assert that North Korea is bound by terms that the United States rejects.
Note that I am not blaming the United States for this. It made a decision that it felt was in its interests. But one of the consequences of that decision is that it can no longer plausibly demand other parties to adhere to limitations contained within an agreement that it chose to abrogate.
Note also that while there is no legal reason that North Korea cannot possess nuclear weapons, that still doesn't mean that it has some right to be free of diplomatic pressure or even sanctions by states attempting to coerce it to abandoning its nuclear program. States are free to advocate what they want to advocate, and trade is not a right.
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.
The legalistic answer to your question is that DPRK signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). By doing so, they agreed to not develop nuclear weapons in exchange for being allowed to access peaceful nuclear technology (power generation, research, creation of medical isotopes, etc.) I don't completely recall the history of DPRK participation in the NPT - I think they signed it relatively late, withdrew for a time, but then re-signed. My comment is based on my current thought that they are currently, and have been since before the first announced test, signatories. If they have withdrawn from the NPT, legalistically, they would have a "right" to develop nuclear weapons, but, all the other NPT signatory nations would be obliged to embargo DPRK bound trade in all sorts of goods, related to weapons development. They would be, legally, in the same position as India, although India looks better having never signed the NPT on principle, while DPRK have been in and out at least once.
The practical answer to why the international community is not willing to just shrug their collective shoulders and let DPRK join the club like Pakistan, India etc. have done is pretty obvious given the behavior of the regime there. Note that India and Pakistan never signed the NPT.
If you are interested, I'm pretty sure the text of the NPT is available on IAEA's web site, in your choice of major UN languages. IIRC, NPT does call for the "eventual" complete dismantlement of the Nuclear Weapons State's arsenals, but does not call for a specific time line. It represents what the UN people thought was the best deal they could get at the time, far from a perfect agreement.
I am dreaming of a day when I can visit St. Thomas in the Virgin Islands and view their long range missile silos on the pristine beaches. Because, why can't they have nuclear missiles?
I am dreaming of a day when I can visit St. Thomas in the Virgin Islands and view their long range missile silos on the pristine beaches. Because, why can't they have nuclear missiles?
Why can't they? They're part of the US, no?
Just not sure who you'd be defending from by having nukes there.
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.
