Reply #34: We "incentived" their pursuit in the first place [View All]

If I were North Korea or Iran, I would be pursuing nuclear weapons as essential for self defense. Bush named them and Iraq as part of an "axis of evil," then invaded Iraq on the flimsiest of pretexts. Iraq was militarily the weakest of the three. Nuclear weapons are pretty much a guarantee against being invaded.

It's possible these countries would have pursued nuclear weapons if 9/11 and Iraq had never happened, but the policies of the Bush administration have certainly contributed to the perception that they need nukes to defend themselves. If we really want to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we need to provide international leadership in fostering a climate in which they are viewed as detrimental to a nation's interests rather than essential for defense.

The U.S. is the greatest arms supplier of the world, and completely hypocritcal when it comes to nuclear weapons. We are currently developing two mini-nukes for actual use as a first-strike weapon. What was previously unthinkable is being seriously put forward by Bush. We have absolutely no cerdibility other than the threat of force, and that is what has fostered the need for other nations to develop nukes.

A strategy for eliminating North Korea's nuclear program must be accompanied by a basic change in U.S. foreign policy that alleviates the concerns that nukes are needed for self defense. Practically speaking, there is no chance to get North Korea's cooperation at this point without providing some positive incentives. Not doing so may seem like standing on principle but it is, in my opinion, a foolish denial of the reality of the situation and what it will take to improve it.