Why can we have nuclear weapons but we police who can and can not?

thru out the world??

And we're on top. The others must be knocked off to retain our position.

It'll get real fun the first time we're jolted off the mount. Real fun. :nuke:

You know, all the hawks saying "See, we told you so".
Oh, wait a minute, they won't be around either.
kind of a win/win situation
isn't it?

:nuke:

a little more rope and they'll hang us all.

These guys are the worst.

Just kidding. :spank:

I'd like to know the answer to this one myself. I'm sure our informed fellow DUers will come up with an answer.

throughout the world and we would never illegally attack a sovereign nation, of course, silly :eyes:

Call me what you will, but I don't like the idea of any additional nations becoming members of the nuclear club. I know it's a selfish POV, but so is survival, when you get right down to it.

:shrug:

because other nations are going after nukes themselves BECAUSE we're going after more nukes.

And other people in other nations think EXACTLY the way YOU do; THEY would rather survive themselves.

It's a nice circle that rakes in $ billions yearly for the US defense industry.

That was just the selfish/scared me speaking up.

;)

America is clearly recognized throughout the ROTW to be the BIGGEST THREAT to the environment, world peace and stability. Y'all got enough nukes to wipe every sentient being off the face of this abused planet several times over. The only defense is having enough serious firepower to do damage to you and your clients. Don't have it? Expect to get run over by a venal bully.

While we have our problems( see *bUSH)our regime will not arbitrarily blow up metropolitan areas using nuclear weapons because we are on a jihad of the week. Despite stolen elections and less than Presidential presidents we have a long standing record of capability to do so but so far have refrained. This is in terms of nuclear, not oil wars (see present day).
That's a simple answer but the only one I could come up with.

on CIVILIAN targets.

Which gives the rest of the world damned good incentive to arm themselves to the frigging teeth with nukes against us.

True, we are, good and accuare point. The fact we did should be taken into account. But so should our 60 year record of not using them immediately following this incident. To not recognize our use long ago would be foolish on other countries part. To not recognize our responsibilty since then would be just as foolish. You have to measure the good with the bad, otherwise you are not being rational.

But that didn't stop America from invading & occupying Iraq and using 10 and 20 year-old happenings as the excuse.

The USA has killed more human beings in its short history than any other nation on this planet.

The USA has overthrown more democratically elected governments than any other nation in history.

The USA has financed and supported every rightwing genocidal dictator on the planet since WWII.

Let's NOT take the BAD into account; if we did that, the USA would be the #1 Rogue State Of All Time.

Lynn, I realize you are speaking with a bit of rhetorical license here, but the USA has actually not killed more human beings than any other nation.

Here's a compendium of "Deaths by Mass Unpleasantness," which attempts to give numbers to the various death totals caused by various governments and wars in the past hundred years. As far as I can tell, its compiler appears to be apolitical in his/her choice of sources and methods. BTW, there's some really interesting stuff (like deaths from tobacco, deaths due to racism, etc.), farther down the page.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm

Here's a sample from the German statistician R. J. Rummel, whose "Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900 (Macht Und Gesellschaft, Bd. 2)" is considered authoratative by experts.


* "Democides" - Government inflicted deaths (1900-87)
o 169,198,000
o Including:
+ Communist Oppression: 110,286,000
+ Democratic democides: 2,028,000
* Not included among democides:
o Wars: 34,021,000
o Non-Democidal Famine (often including famines associated with war and communist mismanagement):
+ China (1900-87): 49,275,000
+ Russia: (1921-47): 5,833,000
* Total:
o 258,327,000 for all the categories listed here.


Here's the best available estimate of US-caused deaths, from "Not The Enemy Media" <http://nottheenemy.com/index_files/Death%20Counts/Death%20Counts.htm>

* Killed through U.S. foreign policy since WWII: 10,774,706 to 16,856,361 (1945-May 2003)

The US has bloody hands like everyone else, but shouldn't be called the worst offender by a long shot.

Peace.

Tied in with US & UK slaughter of Native Africans.

Fact. Not rhetoricial license.

For a sense of scale, the total number of Native Americans north of Mexico at the time of European contact is between four and ten million, by best estimates. (The US would not exist for another three hundred years beyond this contact date, btw.) Native populations likely peaked somewhere around 1200 A.D., and were smaller (due to wars among tribes, changes in climate, and other influences) by the time of Columbus.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761570777/Native_Americans_of_North_America.html#endads

Diseases introduced by Europeans killed more Native Americans than governmental genocide, by far. (I'm not trying to minimize the nastiness visited upon Native Americans by Europeans - we all know it was a catastrophe - but rather, to give some scale to it.)

Even the most drastic estimates of carnage pale next to what was done by the Chinese by their own rulers and by the Japanese, by the Germans to the Jews, and by the Russians to their own people and to the Ukrainians. (We can leave Cambodia for another thread.)

Peace.

genocide of native Africans by the US & UK.

Add them all up, and the US has killed more people in its short history than any other nation on the planet.

Genocide of Natives in the Western Hemisphere

...one of the most massive, and longest lasting genocidal campaigns in human history...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/genocide5.htm

http://www.chgs.umn.edu/

Native American Genocide Still Haunts US

http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1997/native-americans.html


...tens of millions slaughtered, the worst genocide in human history...

http://www.danielnpaul.com/HistoryItemsAndCommunityEvents.html


...America, the mass murder of millions of Native American Indians stands out as one of the most poignant examples of genocide in human history...

http://www.africaspeaks.com/articles/2005/1802.html

Not with nukes but if you're dead, you're dead. (or you'll wish you were)
We can no longer pretend we are the good guys.

I tried to ward off responses like yours (knew they were coming) by including the line IN REGARDS TO NUKES and specifically mention this isn't in relation to the (*bUSH)oil wars. Maybe it slipped past you.
Did not say we are the good guys. Need to look no further than Iraq to know that.

was I not to mention Iraq after reading "our regime will not arbitrarily blow up metropolitan areas using nuclear weapons because we are on a jihad of the week" ?

Gosh golly gee, nothing to do with the "(*bUSH) oil wars" at all.

that. These guys are the ones who wanted to nuke Hanoi. These are the guys who believe the world will end in fire.

If you don't think that *Co would nuke the bad guys, you need to take another look at them.

I am much more afraid of Shrub having his finger on the button than of any little 2bit Korean dictator.

is whatever happened to those good old peace conferences?

1. We are civilized; "they" are not. The definition of "they" changes as circumstances merit...see Pakistan and North Korea.

2. We made them first. This is the "Peace through superior firepower defense." Once again, it is based on the premise that we know better than other nations.

The fallacy here is kinda obvious...we have little in the way of social safety nets, pollute more than just about anyone else, engage in more military conflict than anyone else...etc.

3. What are you going to do about it?

'muricans are the good guys. Really, we are. Trust us. :evilgrin:

There are a lot of countries that are run by thugs with no checks or balances. Work backward from that. Clearly some countries should not have them. Maybe no countries should have them (that's my ideal).

If no countries had them, then no one would need them for MAD. But the problem is, there are thousands of nukes already in the world, and especially since the dissolution of the USSR, the whereabouts of many of them has become murky at best. So powerful countries will not give them up because of the MAD argument. It's a dilemma that's been debated for decades with no practical solution offered so far.

Where does one draw the line? Who draws it?

why the US should NOT be developing even more deadly nuclear weapons. Instead of proceding with multilateral nuclear disarmament, the US is fueling this weapons race.

Since the US violated one of the most important principles of international law, i.e., no pre-emptive war unless there is HARD evidence of iminent attack by another country, the US cannot expect other countries to trust the US's word or intentions.

...that no country's word can be trusted.

Countries are like selfish children, and governments are institutions for managing perception.

They state "The right to self-defense is a fundamental right" over and over...

:evilgrin:

right ?
:evilgrin:

Possessing nuclear weapons means we can say who can possess nuclear weapons (as long as they don't already have them).

As the 20th Century philosopher Ash once observed, "Right, wrong...I'm the guy with the gun."

Wish more Americans would keep that in mind.

I don't think any other country seems to take the use of nuclear weapons as lightly as the US does. For instance, how often do you hear about public figures in India or Pakistan talking about 'glassing' another country?

just nuke them"?

Crazy? Hell yeah. And ignorant and arrogant like a spoiled brat of a child. Let's hope this country grows up before we get spanked by the rest of the world.

My only answer is because we can. That's why everyone does everything. If they can do it, they'll do it.

International law doesn't mean much for the larger countries. It's that hierarchy we all love so much. The countries at the top can do as they wish. Sometimes they go to war, sometimes they don't. The countries at the bottom aren't allowed to do anything to the countries at the top. If they do, it's international outrage.

To me, that's as complicated as it gets for this question. Anyone can do as they wish. It just depends on what rung of the ladder you stand on which determines your punishment.

Unless we can't get to them in time -- like China, North Korea, India.

to a repug friend of mine. His answer-- "Because we are the world's only superpower and we can't trust all these crazy ass a-rabs that just want to blow us up." And yes,he says fox is "fair and balanced" and drudge is unbiased. The guy is an itellegent nutcase, but we regularly debate politics. Some of his "facts" are unbelievable.

think of pre-emptively invading another country, or bullying our neighbors. Repeatedly. Over several decades.

That maybe I missed, why can we HAVE nuclear weapons....we can stop right there and say we should not have them, THEN demand others do not. That would be the correct thing to do. Not stock up and say you, not me.

I mean with getting rid of ours, THEN demanding others not have them either.
It only works if the other guys are willing. I mean, if they have nuclear weapons and we do not, our "demanding" sorta looses it's oomph, you know?
Whereas, having enough bombs to blow the world up five or six times over, and the other guy just getting started, when you 'demand" that they stop... well, it works better.

Liken it to Gandhi demanding a teenage ruffian put down his knife and go home, vs. a team of Mafia hit men armed with Uzis making the same demand. Sure, Gandhi has more moral authority. But moral authority is most effective against those that you worry about the least.

the probability that somebody will use them. By seeking to limit the number of countries with them we seek to lower the chance they will be used.

So far, nukes have been stabilizing devices. MAD has kept some countries from going to war. During the cold war, USA & USSR would have gone to shooting war had it not been for nukes and MAD. Since both became nuclear armed, Pakistan & India have not gone to war, despite several wars between them in the last 60 years.

The question is NOT one of morality and fairness. It is one of survival. I consider survival to be a very high virtue.

England and France have nuclear weapons, as does Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and perhaps North Korea. So perhaps three fourths of all the people on earth live in countries that are nuclear armed. Yet here we sit in high opinion of our own moral standing in the world, and proclaim that this country and that country cannot have nuclear arms. Might makes right - that's our motto.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The poets have known this fact of life for eons. Neocons and their supporters in Red America must learn this ancient lesson all over again the hard way. It's a sad tale but true.

I challenge you to name ONE nuclear power that is not opposed to proliferation.

"level playing field?" :shrug:

:nuke: Thanks for the giggle! :toast:

THEY hate us for our freedoms, so we have to protect ourselves.

I say invade, destroy the infrastructure, then occupy until our profiteer, er, patriotic friends maximizze their profits, er, rebuild

and do that for the rest of the planet.

to USE nuclear weapons against someone who MIGHT have them. The ultimate in hypocricy.

With the AWOL Chimp, this can not be far off.

Cheers
Drifter

We can tell them to piss off, because we are the only ones with the BIG GUNS.

Any more questions?

"the kings of the world" (Thanks to movie Titanic)
and as we always know "it's good to be the king" (Thanks to History of the World Part 1)

Because, as a first world nation, we have a responsibility to make sure these types of weapons don't fall into the hands of less stable nation-states. I think the definition of "stable" is fairly clear. If you want to roll with the nuke club, you've got to have a solid track record of security and stability.

As much as some of us like to joke about it, we are a first world nation and we have demonstrated the ability to remain level headed regarding the use of our nuclear stockpile as a deterrent. I know a lot of you would love to crack some joke about Bush being trigger happy, but let's be realistic. The man is not going to use the bomb in a first-strike scenario, even with all the empty rhetoric about pre-emptive wars. That's just pandery to his base of retards.

Me? I am not proud of the fact that we have so many nuclear weapons, but let's at least try to keep second- and third-world nations from developing their own.

It makes us hypocrites I think. What gives us right to have weapons that can hurt people but not other people to protect themselves?
Bush: Number one terrorist.

.. plan and simple.

It's smart that we have them, and it's also smart we don't let just any old jackass have them, too.

Pragmatic. That's where I'm at.

Heyo