Nuclear Weapons Question

[Big Black Dog]

The United States is the only country in the entire world that has ever used a nuclear weapon in the time of war. No other country on the face of the Earth has done this. A great many countries have nuclear weapons in their war chests and have had them for years. Other countries are in the process of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the claims of only to use nuclear power in a peaceful way such as to produce electricity. Here is the question about nuclear weapons and it is one that I have always wondered about since childhood. Except for trying to be the "school ground bully", what right does the United States have to tell any other country that they can, or cannot, possess nuclear weapons? Is it honestly, really any of our business what another country does with their resources? Just because we have been the only country to have used nuclear weapons in a war, in my opinion, doesn't make us as a country the "permission grantor" for another country - good or bad - to have nuclear weapons. What are your views on this subject? I would appreciate your opinion on this subject.

 

[Si modo]

The United States is the only country in the entire world that has ever used a nuclear weapon in the time of war. No other country on the face of the Earth has done this. A great many countries have nuclear weapons in their war chests and have had them for years. Other countries are in the process of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the claims of only to use nuclear power in a peaceful way such as to produce electricity. Here is the question about nuclear weapons and it is one that I have always wondered about since childhood. Except for trying to be the "school ground bully", what right does the United States have to tell any other country that they can, or cannot, possess nuclear weapons? Is it honestly, really any of our business what another country does with their resources? Just because we have been the only country to have used nuclear weapons in a war, in my opinion, doesn't make us as a country the "permission grantor" for another country - good or bad - to have nuclear weapons. What are your views on this subject? I would appreciate your opinion on this subject.

It's not just the USA who has that right, it is all the signatory states of the NPT.

The text of the NPT is here (it's not long): NPT

The NPT allows for the research and development of nuclear energy and other radioactive (ionizing) material for civilian/peaceful purposes (imaging, for example).

It is in the best interest of all nations of the world to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons. The 185 signatory states of the NPT agree.

 

[Gem]

In my opinion, the fact that the United States is the only nation to date that has used nuclear weapons is irrelevant to whether or not nations like Iran should be allowed to possess them today. We built some of the first nuclear weapons, we used them - not fully aware of the size and scope of their devastation - to end a violent war and, many would argue, to send a message to our enemies, and then we did not use them again because the knowledge of their existence was deterrent enough for those who might seek to attack us in some sort of large-scale fashion.

I find the "why do we have the right to tell other nations whether or not they can have nukes" argument to have a very childish ring to it. My middle-school students would whine every year about the fact that I was allowed to have a water-bottle on my desk that I could sip from if I needed to during class and they were not permitted to carry water bottles. Each year, I discuss with them the reasons why this is the case 1) Students spilling beverages which would a) cause a mess and b) distract from learning, 2) Water fights in the halls 3) students bringing alcoholic beverages in and pretend its waters, etc. etc. but in the end...many still fell back on, "But YOU have a water bottle and we can't...thats not FAIR!!!" And I inevitably would fall back on the same response..."You absolutely CAN have a waterbottle in this classroom...all you have to do is graduate highschool, go to college, get a teaching degree, and get hired by this school district...then you will have the same rights and responsibilities that I have."

The US, and other nations on the UN security council have the right to say "no" to other nation's desire for nukes because we are the ones who are so often called to be the policemen in world. We have had nukes in times when we could have conceivably used them (i.e. The Cold War) and did not, therefore showing that we are not "trigger happy", and we are not out shouting things like we want to push other nations into the sea...perhaps we should say, "Sure, Iran...you can have a nuke...all you have to do is grow up, stop talking about wanting to destroy other nations because they don't have the same religious beliefs you do, etc. etc. etc. and then you can have a nuke like France."

Is it fair? Maybe not. But are you really prepared to allow crazy dictators that speak openly about their desire to destroy other nations build and possess nukes all so you can sleep better at night 'cause you're fair?!?! I think sometimes you just have to be a grown-up and say, "No, its not fair. No, you still can't have one."

 

[Polk]

It's not just the USA who has that right, it is all the signatory states of the NPT.

What about states who did not sign? What about states who signed, but later withdrew their signature?

The NPT allows for the research and development of nuclear energy and other radioactive (ionizing) material for civilian/peaceful purposes (imaging, for example).

It is in the best interest of all nations of the world to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons. The 185 signatory states of the NPT agree.

I agree, but that's not really the question being asked.

 

[Polk]

In my opinion, the fact that the United States is the only nation to date that has used nuclear weapons is irrelevant to whether or not nations like Iran should be allowed to possess them today. We built some of the first nuclear weapons, we used them - not fully aware of the size and scope of their devastation - to end a violent war and, many would argue, to send a message to our enemies, and then we did not use them again because the knowledge of their existence was deterrent enough for those who might seek to attack us in some sort of large-scale fashion.

While I think their use was the right move, it's pretty naive to claim we didn't know the scale of the destruction they would cause.

 

[Si modo]

It's not just the USA who has that right, it is all the signatory states of the NPT.

What about states who did not sign? What about states who signed, but later withdrew their signature? ....

Upon inspection of the NPT you will find clear protocol for withdrawal. The only state to withdraw is North Korea and they have yet to meet the requirements of that withdrawal.

There are only a handful of states who have not signed - India, Pakistan, Israel, just off the top of my head. NK is in the process of getting out. The entire world, except for a few have signed the NPT.

The NPT allows for the research and development of nuclear energy and other radioactive (ionizing) material for civilian/peaceful purposes (imaging, for example).

It is in the best interest of all nations of the world to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons. The 185 signatory states of the NPT agree.

I agree, but that's not really the question being asked.

Sure it is. If it's in the best interest of the entire world, then that, combined with the NPT gives the USA the right.

 

[Polk]

It's not just the USA who has that right, it is all the signatory states of the NPT.

What about states who did not sign? What about states who signed, but later withdrew their signature? ....

Upon inspection of the NPT you will find clear protocol for withdrawal. The only state to withdraw is North Korea and they have yet to meet the requirements of that withdrawal.

There are only a handful of states who have not signed - India, Pakistan, Israel, just off the top of my head. NK is in the process of getting out. The entire world, except for a few have signed the NPT.

How would those states fit into your framework?

The NPT allows for the research and development of nuclear energy and other radioactive (ionizing) material for civilian/peaceful purposes (imaging, for example).

It is in the best interest of all nations of the world to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons. The 185 signatory states of the NPT agree.

I agree, but that's not really the question being asked.

Sure it is. If it's in the best interest of the entire world, then that, combined with the NPT gives the USA the right.

That's a really slippery slope...

 

[Si modo]

What about states who did not sign? What about states who signed, but later withdrew their signature? ....

Upon inspection of the NPT you will find clear protocol for withdrawal. The only state to withdraw is North Korea and they have yet to meet the requirements of that withdrawal.

There are only a handful of states who have not signed - India, Pakistan, Israel, just off the top of my head. NK is in the process of getting out. The entire world, except for a few have signed the NPT.

How would those states fit into your framework? ....

Why don't you tell me what 'my framework' is, exactly.

I agree, but that's not really the question being asked.

Sure it is. If it's in the best interest of the entire world, then that, combined with the NPT gives the USA the right.

That's a really slippery slope...

The NPT is a confirmation of the best interests of the world in keeping proliferation at zero.

 

[Chris]

First we got the bomb, and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.
Who's next?

France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe).
China got the bomb, but have no fears,
They can't wipe us out for at least five years.
Who's next?

Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white.
Who's next?

Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense.
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb.
Who's next?

Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.

Tom Lehrer - Who's next? Lyrics

 

[Polk]

Upon inspection of the NPT you will find clear protocol for withdrawal. The only state to withdraw is North Korea and they have yet to meet the requirements of that withdrawal.

There are only a handful of states who have not signed - India, Pakistan, Israel, just off the top of my head. NK is in the process of getting out. The entire world, except for a few have signed the NPT.

How would those states fit into your framework? ....

Why don't you tell me what 'my framework' is, exactly.

That we have the obligation to enforce the NPT because it's been generally agreed upon internationally.

Sure it is. If it's in the best interest of the entire world, then that, combined with the NPT gives the USA the right.

That's a really slippery slope...

The NPT is a confirmation of the best interests of the world in keeping proliferation at zero.

I agree, but the entire point is that it's a very weak argument.

 

[Si modo]

How would those states fit into your framework? ....

Why don't you tell me what 'my framework' is, exactly.

That we have the obligation to enforce the NPT because it's been generally agreed upon internationally. ....

I'm not aware of any rhetoric from us toward those states who are not signatories about nuclear weapons that is not covered by the NPT. Fill me in.

That's a really slippery slope...

The NPT is a confirmation of the best interests of the world in keeping proliferation at zero.

I agree, but the entire point is that it's a very weak argument.

Then ignore it. Personally I don't think the NPT is a weak argument when discussing nuclear weapons proliferation, but one can't account for the ideas of others in that matter.

 

[Polk]

Why don't you tell me what 'my framework' is, exactly.

That we have the obligation to enforce the NPT because it's been generally agreed upon internationally. ....

I'm not aware of any rhetoric from us toward those states who are not signatories about nuclear weapons that is not covered by the NPT. Fill me in.

Of course not. That's mainly because we're allies with those states though.

 

[Si modo]

That we have the obligation to enforce the NPT because it's been generally agreed upon internationally. ....

I'm not aware of any rhetoric from us toward those states who are not signatories about nuclear weapons that is not covered by the NPT. Fill me in.

Of course not. That's mainly because we're allies with those states though.

Then you have your answer of how they fit into my framework. The USA has not overstepped her bounds in the NPT with respect to those states.

 

[Polk]

I'm not aware of any rhetoric from us toward those states who are not signatories about nuclear weapons that is not covered by the NPT. Fill me in.

Of course not. That's mainly because we're allies with those states though.

Then you have your answer of how they fit into my framework. The USA has not overstepped her bounds in the NPT with respect to those states.

We wouldn't maintain that stance if the non-signatory wasn't an ally.

 

[Si modo]

Of course not. That's mainly because we're allies with those states though.

Then you have your answer of how they fit into my framework. The USA has not overstepped her bounds in the NPT with respect to those states.

We wouldn't maintain that stance if the non-signatory wasn't an ally.

As you have no way of defending that, it really means nothing. I don't know if that is the case, or not.

 

[xsited1]

The United States is the only country in the entire world that has ever used a nuclear weapon in the time of war. No other country on the face of the Earth has done this. A great many countries have nuclear weapons in their war chests and have had them for years. Other countries are in the process of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the claims of only to use nuclear power in a peaceful way such as to produce electricity. Here is the question about nuclear weapons and it is one that I have always wondered about since childhood. Except for trying to be the "school ground bully", what right does the United States have to tell any other country that they can, or cannot, possess nuclear weapons? Is it honestly, really any of our business what another country does with their resources? Just because we have been the only country to have used nuclear weapons in a war, in my opinion, doesn't make us as a country the "permission grantor" for another country - good or bad - to have nuclear weapons. What are your views on this subject? I would appreciate your opinion on this subject.

We are a Superpower. That gives us the right. When America goes bankrupt and falls, another country like China will take over that 'right'.

 

[Big Black Dog]

The United States is the only country in the entire world that has ever used a nuclear weapon in the time of war. No other country on the face of the Earth has done this. A great many countries have nuclear weapons in their war chests and have had them for years. Other countries are in the process of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the claims of only to use nuclear power in a peaceful way such as to produce electricity. Here is the question about nuclear weapons and it is one that I have always wondered about since childhood. Except for trying to be the "school ground bully", what right does the United States have to tell any other country that they can, or cannot, possess nuclear weapons? Is it honestly, really any of our business what another country does with their resources? Just because we have been the only country to have used nuclear weapons in a war, in my opinion, doesn't make us as a country the "permission grantor" for another country - good or bad - to have nuclear weapons. What are your views on this subject? I would appreciate your opinion on this subject.

We are a Superpower. That gives us the right. When America goes bankrupt and falls, another country like China will take over that 'right'.

So far, your answer is the most logical one I've read so far... At least there is some "realistic substance" in your answer. Everything else has been the same old political crap that hasn't worked since it's been written and it isn't working now.

 

[Ame®icano]

The United States is the only country in the entire world that has ever used a nuclear weapon in the time of war. No other country on the face of the Earth has done this. A great many countries have nuclear weapons in their war chests and have had them for years. Other countries are in the process of trying to develop nuclear weapons under the claims of only to use nuclear power in a peaceful way such as to produce electricity. Here is the question about nuclear weapons and it is one that I have always wondered about since childhood. Except for trying to be the "school ground bully", what right does the United States have to tell any other country that they can, or cannot, possess nuclear weapons? Is it honestly, really any of our business what another country does with their resources? Just because we have been the only country to have used nuclear weapons in a war, in my opinion, doesn't make us as a country the "permission grantor" for another country - good or bad - to have nuclear weapons. What are your views on this subject? I would appreciate your opinion on this subject.

We are a Superpower. That gives us the right. When America goes bankrupt and falls, another country like China will take over that 'right'.

So far, your answer is the most logical one I've read so far... At least there is some "realistic substance" in your answer. Everything else has been the same old political crap that hasn't worked since it's been written and it isn't working now.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that once we fall... we'll let China tell us what to do?

Uhm, they already telling us not to print money... LOL

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Where does it say in any treaty or U.S. policy statement that one has to be a user of nuclear weapons in order to grant permission to other nations to either have or not have nuclear weapons?

That being said one must understand the context in which the other nations obtained these weapons. First, Russia captured many German scientists at the end of WW2 that were working on a bomb. Along with their spy network in the USA and their own scientists they were able to solve the problem in 1949 and detonated their first weapon. In order for the rest of the world, who at the time viewed the communist threat as the next greatest challenge of their generation, to feel comfortable about the Soviet having the bomb the USA spread it around to our allies. First was Britain. Then France got upset because they were left out so we gave them the technology as well. In the mean time China and the Soviet had somewhat of a friendship and the Chinese were working on a bomb as well. With a little help from their neighbors they achieved success as well.

Now what does all of this mean?

It means that we have a rather exclusive club and the name of that club is the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council. These 5 members of the Security Council, who wrote the NPT, wanted to keep their membership exclusive to themselves because they all at one time were allies against a greater evil, namely the AXIS powers of Japan, Germany and Italy (haha). As far as India, Pakistan, Brazil, Israel, South Africa and a host of other undeclared nuclear powers....well...lets hope they don't do anything stupid. As far as Iran getting the bomb....well if they do it will be a significant destabilizing element in the greater middle east and more than likely cause the United States to keep a large permanent presence in the Arabian Gulf region in either Iraq, Kuwait or Bahrain. Keep in mind that this alone will keep oil speculators jumping for joy at all of the commissions they will be raking in as they react to Iran's every threatening move however small it may be.

Can you say 500 dollar a barrel oil if Iran gets the bomb?

 

[Si modo]

Where does it say in any treaty or U.S. policy statement that one has to be a user of nuclear weapons in order to grant permission to other nations to either have or not have nuclear weapons? ....

Nowhere. And, the USA and other nuclear weapons states don't have that power either because the NPT does not allow for any new nuclear weapons states. 185 states agreed to that - no proliferation of nuclear weapons.

And, I am not aware of a nuclear weapons state granting such permission.

.... That being said one must understand the context in which the other nations obtained these weapons. First, Russia captured many German scientists at the end of WW2 that were working on a bomb. Along with their spy network in the USA and their own scientists they were able to solve the problem in 1949 and detonated their first weapon. In order for the rest of the world, who at the time viewed the communist threat as the next greatest challenge of their generation, to feel comfortable about the Soviet having the bomb the USA spread it around to our allies. First was Britain. Then France got upset because they were left out so we gave them the technology as well. In the mean time China and the Soviet had somewhat of a friendship and the Chinese were working on a bomb as well. With a little help from their neighbors they achieved success as well.

Now what does all of this mean?

It means that we have a rather exclusive club and the name of that club is the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council. These 5 members of the Security Council, who wrote the NPT, wanted to keep their membership exclusive to themselves because they all at one time were allies against a greater evil, namely the AXIS powers of Japan, Germany and Italy (haha). As far as India, Pakistan, Brazil, Israel, South Africa and a host of other undeclared nuclear powers....well...lets hope they don't do anything stupid. As far as Iran getting the bomb....well if they do it will be a significant destabilizing element in the greater middle east and more than likely cause the United States to keep a large permanent presence in the Arabian Gulf region in either Iraq, Kuwait or Bahrain. Keep in mind that this alone will keep oil speculators jumping for joy at all of the commissions they will be raking in as they react to Iran's every threatening move however small it may be.

Can you say 500 dollar a barrel oil if Iran gets the bomb?

I think this is a bit misleading. There are 185 states who have signed the NPT. There are two types of signatories - weapons states and non-weapons states. The weapons states have more responsibilities toward disarmament and not to proliferate weapons, and that is really the only difference.