Serious question: How can we (the US) tell other countries to get rid of

their nukes when we have them, too?

I have asked that question before and received replies that mostly consisted of "because we can."

Ok, point taken. But I've also heard people say "well those countries are unstable and their leaders are unstable, etc etc."

Um. I think two terms of the MOST unstable guy to ever live in the White House, an economy that is driven only by ever-increasing levels of consumerism (that cannot be sustained forever), and a "democracy" that is showing itself to have bigger holes than a brick of Swiss cheese has got to convince the rest of the world that WE aren't such a stable country ourselves.

The hypocrisy always strikes me whenever I hear (and it doesn't have to be just bush) an official of the US demand that another country get rid of its nukes. Hello? WE have them! Hell, we've got chemical and biological weapons, too. Scads of them.

invading countries, trying to depose governments, and sabotaging economies, without any pretext other than the need to protect profits for a few large banks, oil companies, and arms manufactures?

Thank you.

Now....to hope for some answers?

I really wish other countries would point that out sometimes. As in "Uh what about YOU guys?"

Not that I want any conflict with them, but I hate how hypocritical my country is (has become).

:shrug:

If the rest of the world can't expect the US to behave reasonably, then how can we be surprised that they're willing to resort to force/Mutually Assured Destruction as a last resort.

Isn't that sort of why 2nd Amendment enthusiasts justify gun ownership? When the unreasonable criminal breaks into your house, you're better off armed than unarmed?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that it's the same exact logic.

We seem to be the "Do as I Say, Not as I Do" country.

People find that attitude/behavior appalling in other people, so why wouldn't they find it the same in international matters?

I'm getting tired of the Great Oz trying to throw his weight around with his proclamations of who is evil and who is not. If you were an Iranian, would you not want nukes? It's called self-preservation.

Whenever I consider what we as citizens can do about the sorry state of our country, I am reminded that in February of 2003 30 MILLION people in countries around the world marched en masse, against the war in Iraq. Not only were they ignored by the corrupt media, the administration never batted an eye.

International polls consistently show that BUSH is the greatest threat to international security, not the so-called axis of oil. I'm afraid we're stuck here waiting for the international leaders to step up to the plate and take their own action. The regime clearly doesn't care what the PEOPLE have to say.

"Yeah, it is hypocritical that we have nukes and we are telling you not to have them. But we are making the same hypocritical argument to your neighbor, who is nuts and hates you. So don't point out how weak our position is, and how unfair, and concentrate on what you need to do to be safe from your immediate neighbor. Join with us, go without nukes, and we'll take care of the nutbag neighbor and you'll be safer than if you engage in an argument."

Fact is, I think that most countries of the world feel better with France having nukes than the Ukraine, and accept the hypocrisy as the best way to prevent proliferation.

they can't be uninvented and the technology for their manufacture is widely available. Even if we had a fully functioning conventional military it wouldn't prevent a missile from landing on US or European cities. Hit us, we hit you back. A stupid philosophy but real, nontheless.

It's a bit of a Faustian pact I suppose but think back to "Mutually assured Destruction". It seems we have a tiger by the tail. We can't give them up easily because they are necessary as a "deterrent" in some quarters. OK, that won't stop suicidal nutters; that I accept. However, if they are available they might make an attack on a nuclear power less likely.

That's a bloody sad situation and I wish it was resolvable. At present, I don't think it is. Longer term they should be phased out and detailed surveillance systems should be used to detect manufacture of weapons grade plutonium.

But, the waters are muddied by the likely shift towards nuclear power, in a desperate attempt to compensate for the fall-off in fossil fuel supplies. As you probably know, fuel grade nuclear materials have military applications too. Consequently, the stuff for weapons manufacture is likely to be available in the future and, if a major power didn't have nukes it'd potentially be held to ransom.

An awful situation, one which, as I say above, I wish could be resolved. To reiterate though, they can't be uninvented and a lot of smaller countries want them to level the playing field, simply because the current big players have them.

As the world energy supplies fizzle out, military might is going to count for a lot...an awful lot. I can't see them being relinquished easily given that scenario. We need a quantum shift in human thinking to achieve that; we're some way off that ideal, which is a pity...a great pity.

moral relativism....why must it be on the left side of the aisle?

Are you saying we should let the Islamofascists of Iran, Syria, etc get their hands on nukes? Do you know these are FASCIST, AUTHORITARIAN, ANTI-DEMOCRATIC DICTATORSHIPS who have stated their desire to DESTROY ISRAEL and all who stand with it (including America, obviously)?

Jesus...Why can't people learn to differentiate between peaceful, democratic nations who use the weapons as deterrants (Britain, Israel, Germany, etc) from the wacked out Islamofascists who want them to threaten, dominate, and expand? This lack of common sense judgement from a few on our side makes the entire party look bad.

And, it is by far the most dangerous nation in the world today. Further, how much "expanding" has the "Islamofascists" done? As compared to the "peaceful, democratic" USA?

Iran will likely use one to start a war.

And we really haven't done much expanding. We have the same 50 states we had a century ago.

Iran wants to create a world government based on Islamic law. Their religion (or their interpretation of it) demands that they destroy the jews and convert all infidels, by violence if necessary.

I said we should LET other countries get their hands on nukes, as you put it? You made a HUGE HUGE assumption there and then based everything else you said on it.

I guess I would say to you: grrrrrr, poor reading comprehension skills...why must it be on the left side of the aisle?

Jesus, why can't people learn to differentiate between people asking a question about our OWN nukes and people saying anti-democratic countries should have them?

Jesus, why can't certain DUers learn to engage in a bit more logic and a bit less hotheadedness?

So go ahead, point out to me where I said countries like Iran or Syria SHOULD HAVE nukes. Good luck. And not that I'm expecting one, but I think you owe me an apology for jumping to such a conclusion.