Let’s be naive/innocent for a moment and pretend that the world is a fair-play playground. 
So, what is the moral ground for countries with enormous quantities of WMD (USA, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel) to deny the other countries right to manufacture/own their own WMD? What’s the best explanation you have heard?
So that they can’t use it against n? (n = Insert your country here)
I think this is the most basic answer.
I’d say the official explanation, which I pretty much agree with, is that we are more responsible and know how to handle them.
In general the US doesn’t have a problem with stable, capitalist democracies having nuclear weapons. This is because nearly all stable, capitalist democracies are very good friends of ours, and they tend to be run by people who are for the most part sane.
As for China, well, just try and stop them.
Countries like North Korea and Iran, though, which are run by totally psychopathic and thoroughly evil regimes are a far more egregious threat. These are the kinds of people who won’t think twice about using them for offensive purposes or for blackmail.
Weeeelll… my country was recently attacked by one of those “responsible countries.” Not that I supported The Dictator they wanted to topple - but I didn’t like bombers armed with depleted uranium weapons either. But who am I to criticize…
:dubious:
I may have misunderstood the question, but the world has more or less agreed that the UN has the authority to make decisions like this, and such decisions are acted through the security council (whose membership happens to include the first 5 nuclear nations IIRC).
So that’s how it is supposed to work, in theory… the world (UN) decides that a country has misbehaved and cannot be trusted with WMD. They draft a resolution dictating terms of compliance. If the country wouldn’t agree to the terms of the resolution, then the matter is turned over to the security council for military action to resolve the problem. That’s how it works in a perfect world.
In reality, the UN is quite content to draft resolutions but does almost nothing to back them up. Iraq, for example, violated virtually every UN resolution binding against it… for example, the cease-fire of the first gulf war, the no-fly zones, the inspection regimes, and explaining the location of thousands of tons of bio and chem weapons. In fact I am having difficulty recalling any UN resolutions or programs that Iraq didn’t violate*. According to the UN charter these could and should have automatically been grounds for military action, but this did not occur and the task was pursued outside of the UN.
*The oil for food program is one possible exception, although with the full benefit of hindsight we now know that Iraq was using it to bribe security council members against military action.
General Questions is for questions with factual answers. Great Debates is our forum for debates. I’ll move this to Great Debates for you.
DrMatrix - GQ Moderator
Well, the USA is pretty popular right now. (When has it not been?)
I always figured the countries who can have nukes are the ones who built them before we realized the possible implications of large nuclear stockpiles, and now can’t get rid of them; and that other countries can’t start their own stockpiles now.
But I may misunderstand it.
I, too, still wonder why it’s OK for our obviously imperialistic-minded country to have such weapons and others not to.
All of the countries you list are members of the Chemical Weapons Convention, as are the overwheming number of countries in the world. There are now 162 countries that have pledged to disarm all stocks of chemical weapons, or to never pursue CW. Iraq was not a signatory to the CWC, but the cease-fire in 1991 obligated Iraq to declare and disarm all CW stocks. (I do not personally believe that the US, acting on its own initiative and impramatur, should have invaded.)
There are also 152 countries that are members of the Biological Weapons Convention. Iraq was on the list of those who had approved the BWC.
The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty has 189 members. Those countries that possess nuclear weapons when they signed are allowed to keep them, but they are admonished to take steps toward the complete and verifyable disarmament of their nuclear weapons. The other countries agree never to pursue them.
When such an overwhelming number of countries freely agree to forego ever seeking these types of weapons of mass destruction, if they break their word, they should be called on it.
Where I you from, ** goenetix **, if I may ask?
It is important to note that the U.S. apparently gave assurances to non-nuclear nations that if they signed the treaty, the U.S. would not use nuclear weapons against them. In other words, the U.S. was saying, “We exercise our right to have nuclear weapons for their deterence against other nuclear nations but we will not use them against you if you do not have nuclear weapons and sign on to the non-proliferation treaty.”
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration’s pursuit of a “bunker-buster” nuke appears to be dangerously close to violating these assurances because it contemplates using nukes for another purpose other than nuclear deterence. This is one of the reasons why many global security experts think that pursuing such weapons is a very bad idea.
What steps have the nuclear powers taken in the last 30 odd years towards completel and verifiable disarmament? And how do you suggest that they should be ‘called’ on their failure to comply with the treaty?
As in, we have significant investment in their economies and industries.
heh. hehe. hehehe.
heh. hehe. hehehe.
You should really try to understand your enemy instead of under- or over-estimating them.
In the 1980s, the US and Russia had about 25,000 strategic nuclear warheads. Right now, there are in the neighborhood of 9,000 warheads between the two countries. By 2012, the two sides will have somewhere around 4,000. An entire class of intermediate range nuclear missiles was banned in 1988. That’s meangingful progress.
But, of course, there are setbacks. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was nixed by the US Senate a few years back, and has been killed by the Bush Administration. The US is looking toward a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons, at the same time Russia is in full-speed development of a missile that will apparently make our nacent missile defense system useless.
Nobody expected complete nuclear disarmament in 30 years. But since I’m sure you have some ideas on how to call the superpowers on it, why don’t you share your thoughts first.
(That would be in response to your second and entirely unexplained “heh. hehe. hehehe.” regarding Iran and N.K.)
I don’t exactly want nukes to get in the hands of N.K.
Though we could have gotten the means to obtain them out of their hands if we didn’t get all distracted by this quicksand mess.
I used to think like that about more responsible… until Bush and Sharon took the reins of power.
When you feel that China is the least likely to use nukes… you’re in a wierd world.
Nope.
What made Iraq uniquely doable was that as part of the ceasefire agreement at the end of the '91 Gulf War Iraq agreed to abolish its (WMD and ballistic missile) stockpiles, kill its programs, turn over its equipment and facilities for monitoring, and make full disclosure of all such WMD and ballistic missile related activities up through that time. If they failed in that endeavor then because Iraq had violated teh cease fire that cease fire would no longer be binding on the other parties to the agreement.
It turned out that subsequent resolutions by the UN and strikes by the UK and US made clear that the UN (and UK and US) really, really meant business. And after the five hundred and seventeenth or so full, complete and final disclosure all the programs were gone, equipment destroyed (and mostly accounted for). But due to prior bad faith acts on Iraq’s part, poor documentation of destroyed munitions and equipment, and a fatal willingness of Hussein to bluff with his nonexistant arsenal against Iran, no one really believed that *all * of his equipment was gone.
Absent the cease fire agreement an entirely different rationale would be required for war.
My only problem is that what happens if Iran just says - “According to article X of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, in recognition of the extraordinary threats to Iran’s security posed by the nuclear arms race on its borders between non signatory parties India and Pakistan, Iran will withdraw from the NNPT as of (3 months from now)”. http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm
The NNPT is voluntary and contains no enforcement mechanism within itself. It explicitly gives a withdrawal mechanism in recognition of national sovereignty.
Touche! And with such… economy of expression. :rolleyes:
Then I am sure that most of the world will lose its incentive to treat Iran with less respect than they already do. If a county wants to isolate itself from world opinion, it should be prepared to face the consequences.
The NPT has a fine enforcement mechanism. In fact, its probably the most robust of any multlateral arms control regime. It’s the IAEA and the safeguards agreements that all nations are required to provide; and, of course, the IAEA has direct access to the Security Council for consideration of matters relating to enforcement.
The BWC, OTOH, has no enforcement mechanism at all.
Just add some colorful language I saw in the news today… U.S. General Warns Iran Against Exploiting U.S.