They already have nukes and they won’t give them up.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_744254,00050001.htm
Are they living in a dream world? They can’t accept that they have them??
I never will understand how the country with the most nuclear warheads can tell any other country they can’t have any.
What’s the next step for Bushco? Invasions?
Does the US have a say in what goes on inside of Allied countries?
:rolleyes:
What exactly is wrong with Bush asking these countries to sign the NPT as non-nuclear powers and to give up their nukes? We can’t force them to do it (short of invasion, which isn’t realistic…we’re talking about Israel here, not to mention India. Pakastan I could MAYBE see, if I was really drunk, but not the others), but we can exert pressure to TRY and make them. Whats wrong with that exactly, Reeder??
The US was the first power to aquire nuclear weapons. So, thats why WE have them. Is it your contention that because we (as well as all the other members of the UNSC, and assorted others) have them, everyone should be allowed to have them?? How does that make sense?
-XT
What’s wrong with the US signing the NPT and giving up our nukes?
Um…just a little thing like the US being a superpower? That the US having them is a very real deterent to anyone else using them? Something like that? If EVERYONE else was giving them up and the US was refusing, then you might have a case. However, the US ASKING India, Pakastan and Israel to give them up, and exerting influence to try and make them…no, I don’t see a problem with that at all.
-XT
No President, Republican or Democrat, would agree to that in the foreseeable future. That’s just the way our political climate is. Yes, it is hypocritical that the United States loves to hold other countries to standards that it refuses to hold itself to.
Even if we are hypocrites, it’s still a good idea to reduce the number of nukes floating around in the world.
So you are a believer of United States Uber Alles are you?
Wouldn’t any other countries feel the same way? That they’d like to have a real deterrent against anybody else using them also? As the US doesn’t trust other countries, other countries don’t trust the US either. Having nukes is almost like achieving a real equalizer.
Can’t India, Pakistan and Israel ask the US to give up its nukes, or is this not a reasonable question at all?
“We here! We nuclear! Get used to it!” 
Bushco doesn’t like equal. They are like the bully on the playground. They don’t want any country, even allies, to be able to stand up to them.
You’re acting as though this is a new thing, Reeder. It’s not.
Historically, the United States has always pressured other countries into either giving up their nukes or discontinuing their programs in their infancy. It’s a simple matter of tensions. Pakistan/India is a tense situation right now. Not only do we not want to see them go nuclear, we certainly don’t want to see China get involved, which will happen if their neighbors start popping nukes. And Israel has always shown a willingness to go way out of bounds, so why the hell would we want a hyper-militant, aggressive government to have nuclear weapons smack in the middle of the most combative region in the world?
This is not “Bushco” policy. This is, and has been, the policy of every United States government since other countries started to develop the bomb.
I agree it’s not new. But it is Bushco policy. It’s not right whatever administration does it.
Well, the US is a member of the NPT, and that binds us to seeking nuclear disarmament. Look it up.
Unfortunately, Bush is seeking to build new, smaller nuclear weapons rather than negotiating in good faith to phase out nuclear weapons from the face of the earth.
Reeder, I had no idea that you thought that nukes are okay in the hands of India, Pakistan, and Israel, but not the United States.
Oh how very politically correct…
The facts are that the US is a stable, civilized, modern, democracy and the best hope the planet Earth has for the future. Its been almost 60 years since the end of WWII and over 10 years since the end of the Cold War and we’ve used against or threatened exactly zero countries with nuclear attack (other than obviously counter-threatening the USSR).
Countries like India, Pakistan, the entire Middle East, North Korea etc. aren’t stable or democratic or civilized enough to be trusted with nukes. It is in the best interests of absolutely no one that these countries aquire/stockpile nuclear weapons.
Who decides this? The United States. Who better?
On this subject? Damn right I am. You are a fool if you aren’t. Sorry Reeder, you are getting no traction with me as far as trying to equate the US with India and Israel, much less Pakastan as far as having nukes go, from a stability stand point, much less a responsibility stand point.
:rolleyes: I didn’t realize the Bushco had been in power since the late 40’s early 50’s. Man, thats your deepest conspiricy yet…
But of course, you only fly off the handle into la la land when its Bush that does it… It IS right, even if its Clinton or Carter thats doing it. I simply can’t see how anyone could possibly live in the real world and think its a GOOD idea for unstable nations to have access to nukes, nor how anyone could rail at the US (or any of the OTHER NPT signators) for trying to encourage such countries to give them up.
Not that I doubt you (I’d believe nearly anything non-tinfoil hattish of Bush) but do you have a cite for this Ravenman? It seems vaguely familiar but I don’t remember where I read it.
-XT
Anyone that refers to the United States government as “Bushco” obviously has no desire for impartial and reasoned discussion, why do you even bother posting? You are so obviously left wing and unwilling to discuss anything rationally because accepting a conservative as an equal in an argument would be impossible to you.
Really, why do you even bother?
And of course, ultimately I doubt you even read the entire news article.
For anyone wanting the real story, I’ll sum it up:
If these countries sign the NPT as nuclear states (like the UK) then that means they are eligible for direct aid in their nuclear programs. The United States doesn’t want to fund these programs because it would simply make the region more dangerous, so they aren’t going to allow them to become “nuclear states” on the NPT.
It isn’t them saying, “You don’t have any nuclear weapons.”
Also the NPT calls for the halting of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but there is no set “scale” of things the U.S. must do, and we don’t have to actively destroy our nukes.
And since that is the original intent of the treaty, it also wouldn’t make sense for us to start rolling out the red carpet for all the other new nuclear powers of the world.
I’ll corroborate it as a confirmed “conservative.” When me moved out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, there was also talk from Pentagon officials about the possible research of tactical nukes. There hasn’t been a lot of extensive talk about it since then. This was prior to 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq, when talk first started about them, so they’ve probably been put on the back burner.
And this would be so bad ?
Declan
Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons.
All of the natural and wholesome goodness of nuclear weapons, with only a fraction of the calori-, er, yield!
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes: