“Are they NUTS!!!”
That was my initial reaction. I’ll admit straightaway that I don’t know the details of the treaty. I’m sure you’ll take everything I say with a grain of salt without me having to tell you to. My knowledge of the issue is limited and I wouldn’t mind being educated in it. I would like very much to discus it further.
Now, for my opinion. It seems to me that the main complaint about the treaty is that it wouldn’t force people to respect it. Excuse me, but has any treaty forced anyone to do anything? I don’t think so. A treaty is a piece of paper, no some omnipotent enforcer. A treaty is a statement of intentions, an agreement to follow certain rules. Sometimes, a treaty is a moral statement, and I think this latest treaty fell into that category. It was a moral choice and the U.S. failed it.
I’ve watched media from around the world in the few languages I understand. It’s big news outside of the U.S. People are unbelieving. The U.S. goverment, whether by choice or not, is a world leader that’s a light to many parts of the world. Many other countries look up to the U.S. for guidance in politics, economy, and morality. Yet again and again the U.S. goverment sends the wrong signals to the world. It’s willing to act as a policeman in parts of the world far away and says it seeks world peace and stability, yet the acts don’t follow the words.
What is the Senate afraid of? How many nuclear weapons do you need for it to constitute a nuclear deterent? IMHO, one and maybe a spare. Then again, nuclear weapons are not an reasonable alternative to any conflict in our present era. With new nuclear powers appearing throughout the world, better judgment was needed. Isolationist policies are counter-productive to democracy and world peace.
I ask again, what are these people afraid of? Do they actually think the people of the world will run rampant if the U.S. doesn’t keep up its nuclear arsenal? Does anyone feel that nuclear weapons as they stand aren’t enough of a deterrent? The U.S. has relied again and again on superior technology in weaponery that had nothing to do with nuclear energy to intervene in international conflicts. Where and when has the U.S.'s nuclear arsenal come into play?
In our present time nuclear weapons are useless except to prevent other people from using it. Better nukes are not more useful, they’re just better nukes with no humanely acceptable target. I don’t see how the treaty comes close to being a ‘threat’ to U.S. interests, let alone national security.
The treaty was a moral statement, if nothing else. It had been agreed and ratified by many countries. Some haven’t and it’s a shame which the U.S. now shares. It really saddens me that such an important issue was subverted to political interests.
Only humans commit inhuman acts.