Should the United Nations Have More Authority to Regulate Nuclear Arms?

[evthis]

Does America have the right to demand that countries presently lacking in nuclear arms do not take measures to become nuclear arms equipped?

 

[spender]

Who ****ing Cares About What Bunch Of Psychopaths Think?

 

[PerennialII]

Does America have the right to demand that countries presently lacking in nuclear arms do not take measures to become nuclear arms equipped?

Nope. Doesn't mean that I cherish the idea of giving nukes to terrorists etc., but rather that lost some of the naivety towards the actions and policies of the US.

 

[loseyourname]

It depends on the country. If we're talking countries like Iran and North Korea, that have attempted in the past to conquer their neighbors, then I'd say their neighbors certainly have the right to demand that they not acquire nuclear weapons. Since these neighbors can't do a damn thing about it themselves, the US feels that it should, since it has some interest in these matters as well. Any nation has the right to demand that its best interest be taken care of. By the same token, Iran and North Korea have the right to demand nuclear weapons; they'll be a lot more powerful with them than without them.

 

[spender]

nobody respects usa, other nations are only afraid of some stupid reaction of white house.that is why everyone suddenly is developing nukes=self defense against idiots.usa/israel deserves to be wiped out from the face of this planet.

 

[evthis]

nobody respects usa, other nations are only afraid of some stupid reaction of white house.that is why everyone suddenly is developing nukes=self defense against idiots.usa/israel deserves to be wiped out from the face of this planet.

why does usa/israel deserve to be wiped out ?

 

[russ_watters]

Does America have the right to demand that countries presently lacking in nuclear arms do not take measures to become nuclear arms equipped?

Yes, if the country in question has signed the NPT and maybe if the country (as said above) has demonstrated that it can't be trusted.

 

[Evo]

idiots.usa/israel deserves to be wiped out from the face of this planet.

Let's refrain from derogatory remarks of this nature. Let's not bring the discussion down to such a low level.

 

[Informal Logic]

Aside from who should have arms and who should determine who should have arms (ie "threatening" is in the eyes of the beholder, and those making the determination may be bullies themselves), all the regulation, treaties, etc. cannot change that, as they say, the cat's out of the bag.

 

[misskitty]

Does America have the right to demand that countries presently lacking in nuclear arms do not take measures to become nuclear arms equipped?

I agree with Russ. I also think, to avoid hypocracy, everyone should take measures to unarm themselves of nuclear weapons. If everyone is so afraid of everyone one that has nuclear weapons; why not then take steps so no one has them?

 

[Lyuokdea]

Yes, because Iran, North Korea, and others signed the NPT, they currently have an obligation to not acquire Nuclear Weapons. However, under Article VI we currently have a right to disarm, we're not doing that, neither is anybody really. I think other countries do have some legitimate grounds to call the treaty void, or at least hold the P5 in violation, however, as that hasn't happened and they are signatories we do have the right to demand that they not acqire Nuclear Weapons.

~Lyuokdea

 

[misskitty]

Well, it does make sense. Could someone refresh my memory as to what NPT stands for?

 

[dextercioby]

NonProliferation (of nuclear weapons) Treaty...

Daniel.

 

[misskitty]

Ah Ha! Thank you Daniel... I think we were talking about that last week. It would probably be best if no one had this kind of munnition...the problem is how do you get everyone to relinquish their arsenal?

 

[dextercioby]

I frankly doubt there's a way.Even though you destroy the ogives,but you still get to keep the "intelligence" and the capabilities.They're here to stay,just like CO_{2} and the greenhouse effect...

Daniel.

 

[misskitty]

Unfortunately that is true.

 

[franznietzsche]

Does America have the right to demand that countries presently lacking in nuclear arms do not take measures to become nuclear arms equipped?

If those countries signed the NUclear Nonproliferation Treaty, then yes.

When will people like you and spender actually bother to learn history?

 

[franznietzsche]

Yes, because Iran, North Korea, and others signed the NPT, they currently have an obligation to not acquire Nuclear Weapons. However, under Article VI we currently have a right to disarm, we're not doing that, neither is anybody really. I think other countries do have some legitimate grounds to call the treaty void, or at least hold the P5 in violation, however, as that hasn't happened and they are signatories we do have the right to demand that they not acqire Nuclear Weapons.

~Lyuokdea

QFE

for you morons that don't know your history or international treaties, and insist on bashing us for acting fully within our rights under international treaties.

 

[spender]

How many treaties USA took for granted ? many, and what ?
But you want to invade Iran for just building one civilian reactor ?
How about Israel and their stockpile of nukes ? of course they need them to defend themselfs against evil arabs.
USA should start demanding first that Israel stops building nukes and only then talk to Iran or N.Korea.

 

[dextercioby]

They can't do that,because they're offering "intelligence" and making good money outta it...

Daniel.

 

[misskitty]

Money makes the world go round guys.

 

[dextercioby]

I see that as a good point.Where's no feeling,there's always room for money.

Daniel.

 

[misskitty]

Money is the ultimate motivator. If a country can get a tactical as well as an economic advantage through the production of a nuclear arsenal, they will not be will to relinquish it as quickly as one might want. When interrogated about it, they will try to make every excuse they can to keep their arsenal. Including claiming self defense. It is difficult to believe self defense is the only reason for te development of such munnitions, especially if they haven't been directly threatend by another country. Instead just saying they feel threatend by their neighbors is enough explanation.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I don't think money is the driving reason to have them. As you suggest, fear seems to be it. A nation that feels threatened has reason to spend a lot of its resources developing atomic capability. That was what drove India and Pakistan (mutually). North Korea certainly seems to think we are going to invade it, and Iran is surely feeling surrounded with US troops in Iraq on its west border as well as Afghanistan on its east border.

 

[misskitty]

I can agree with that. Money does play a factor in it though. Fear is proabably about 75% of it. The rest is a toss between money and the desire to be an "established world power". Korea cited the desire to be considered a world power and not a developing country as one of the reasons why they wanted to develop an arsenal. The rest was theat from their neighbors.

 

[misskitty]

I was going to ask how relations were between India and Pakistan as of late. I haven't heard very much about what's going on over there.

 

[evthis]

If those countries signed the NUclear Nonproliferation Treaty, then yes.

When will people like you and spender actually bother to learn history?

Why would signing a treaty like the NPT give America a "right" to tell other countries that it is right for America to be with nuclear weapons but it is wrong for other countries to have them or develop them?

 

[loseyourname]

Why would signing a treaty like the NPT give America a "right" to tell other countries that it is right for America to be with nuclear weapons but it is wrong for other countries to have them or develop them?

By signing the treaty, they agreed that they would not develop a nuclear weapons program. This gives any signatory the right to object when another signatory violates the treaty.

 

[evthis]

By signing the treaty, they agreed that they would not develop a nuclear weapons program. This gives any signatory the right to object when another signatory violates the treaty.

But what about countries that already have nuclear weapons that sign the NPT? How is it that they have a right to tell other countries "its ok for us to have them but not for you?"

 

[loseyourname]

But what about countries that already have nuclear weapons that sign the NPT? How is it that they have a right to tell other countries "its ok for us to have them but not for you?"

The other countries agreed to it. If they didn't want to, they didn't have to sign.