A dangerous question to ask

[hyphenate]

perhaps, but I want a well thought out answer that makes absolute sense and doesn't make any presumptions about anything along the way.

Why are we, the United States, the main country, to decide what countries can be nuclear powers?

I know there is some involvement with the U.N. and EU, but frankly, it seems to me that every country has the right to develop nuclear energy and other nuclear resources, and I don't think ANY other country has the power to say who should be nuclear and what ones shouldn't.

Perhaps I am merely being naive on this, but my feelings are that we have been playing the "superior power" card WAY too often, and we ARE bullies. Not just the U.S., though; any of the "allies" who want to keep other countries out of the "nuclear club."

Why should we condemn or censure another country who is developing nuclear power? Shouldn't they have the right to advance their country? Shouldn't they have the right to do exactly as they please just as our country does? It makes me sick to think that a bunch of nations are trying to keep other countries out of that exclusive club just because we can't agree on their political views. Personally, I disagree with the current regime in my own country, and frankly, I'm more worried about GWB pushing the red button than I am about Iran doing it!

This planet, as much as in the United States, is a sorry story, with several powerful and rich countries, others in the supposed "middle class" range, and then you have the poor countries, just like those who are poverty stricken here in our own country. We're supposed to be "capitalists" in the sense that people have the alleged ability to bring themselves up from poverty and make something of themselves, but on a global scale, we can't abide by that. We would rather keep countries out of that level of power, just "because." Am I alone in thinking that we are the FAILURE and that by keeping other nations from doing what they please, we are worse than the worst bullies on the playground?

I've asked the question before of friends, and they never give me an answer that in any way makes any sense. It's simply that we want to remain a major power, and that we can't stand to see a country managing to get to a point in their internal evolution where they "become a threat" to the rest of the world. Threat? Yes, nuclear nations consider anyone with a different philosophy having the educational resources to join that club a menace. Perhaps they fear global retaliation from a country such as North Korea, but in fact, both the USSR and China were considered major threats as well, and while we have a tenuous relationship with China, we couldn't be better buddies than with the former Soviet Union countries. And no, no atomic missiles were ever launched, and no there is no nuclear war, and while there have been some shaky times, the worse case scenario never happened.

So, I ask again: why the fuck can't any country with the resources, intelligence and ability become a nuclear power? Our own president is more likely than many other country leaders to push the button--we have more to fear from him than Kim Jon Ill (or however it's spelled) or any other such leader.

[bullimiami]

1. animals lead by intimidation and force

humans would lead by example and discussion.

our country is being run by animals.

[JeffR]

2. My two cents

And I don't really disagree with anything you've said. But these weapons and the technology to create them are dangerous things, for the entire planet.

That we have nuclear weapons, especially with the Dictator-tot in charge of them, is horrifying, but the United States must do whatever it can to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

I suspect it'll be a happy day, no doubt under a Democratic president, when we seriously address the issue of getting rid of our own nuclear arsenal.

[diamondsndust]

7. LMAO!!!!!!!!! I think you just coined a new word....

Dictator-tot ............ too freakin' funny!!!!!!!!!:headbang:

[JeffR]

10. Thanks, can't take credit for it

Saw someone use it on a post last year. It's my fave description of Prez Quick-Draw.

[northzax]

3. There is a qualitive difference with Nuclear Weapons

and Chemical/Biological as well, from other technologies. The sheer destructive power of these weapons, and the relative lack of skill and people needed to operate them, makes them different. Diffusion of nuclear weapons technology is a danger to everyone, and everyone has the obligation to work to prevent that diffusion to increasingly unstable states. Logically, the thing that kept the US and USSR from going to war directly, instead of through the Proxies of Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, was the threat of mutually assured destruction. Both nations, and their leaders, knew there was no way to win a nuclear war, and there were enough checks and balances, however weak, to prevent someone with a death wish from gaining access to the nuclear button. Until 2001, when Pakistan joined the club, the Nuclear states were basically rational actors, as rational as a state could be. No matter how screwed up their internal politics were, the leadership had enough restraint and sanity to not want to die, or see any percentage in doing so, they all had too much to lose.

Now, as nuclear weapons continue to proliferate, there is an increasing chance, every year, that a weapon will end up in the hands of someone who doesn't have anything to lose. If you don't have a state to lose, then what's stopping you from using a nuclear weapon? not much, if retaliation and general opprobrium from killing all your people isn't going to be your lasting legacy. It also increases the chance of someone losing a war while possessing nuclear weapons, just as an animal, backed into a corner, will fight tooth and nail to the death, won't a last ditch 'take them with me' strike be possible, nay, probable?

And, I would posit, that George Bush is not actually likely to push the button, there are too many fail safes in place for him to do so, unless there is a real first strike from somewhere else. he can't actually launch missiles, he's has to get someone else to do it for him, and that's not all that likely in a first strike scenario, against a non-nuclear powered enemy.

[neweurope]

4. I agree about non-proliferation. But I disagree where you say Bush

couldn't push the button. Your military has no history of saying "no" to your presidents. When I was in a peace group - way back in the time of the SS 20 - a highranking German officer told us how many times (I forgot) the pilots had already been sitting in their planes and nuclear war almost took off. The public never knew this. Most of us still don't know how easily nuclear war could come about. False information could suffice.

Also your country is forever talking about the "first strike doctrine", the only country in the world which does so, by the way.

So I do agree - Iran should not get nuclear weapons (BUT we must not under any circumstances go to war about this!), nor should any other country which doesn't have them already. BUT everybody who DOES have them should give them up. And I mean everybody, even my beloved neighbour France. BUT first the biggest bully on the block. Because if you don't nobody else will. The world is scared of you.

--------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[NoFederales]

5. Nuclear weapons are akin to Roosevelt's "Big Stick" and as a

policy of wielding that stick I do not believe that the US will ever give up on who can wield it along with us. The Bush extremists are so scary because they see themselves alone at the top of world power. The old detente checks and balances they believe to be gone.

We are right to fear mad men at the controls of nuclear weaponry, who'd have thought that the maddest hatters would be Bush extremists, neocons, PNACers, or whatever goddamned moniker of the week is most popular?

Everyone should have a big stick to provide a check and balance against BushCo.

NoFederales

[quaoar]

6. To answer the question

Because of the Nuclear Non-Profileration Treaty of 1968.

Here's a good overview of it:

http://www.state.gov/t/np/trty/16281.htm

[hyphenate]

9. Thanks, Doug--

I'll give that a good read. :)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

8. Just like the kid with the biggest bag of marbles

protected his dominance.