Why doesn't America disarm their own nukes since they want Iran/North Korea to?

[Tastyfish]

Can we make this not about america? None of the countries currently in possession of nukes want Iran/NK to have nukes, and none of them are disarming, Singling out America does nothing for your argument except turn it into another US vs the world thread.

Was there really a point to this other then nation bashing? The Op clearly has the ability to determine how people will take a thread like this but chose a volitile way of presenting his argument anyhow.

[TheCaz]

Does anyone remember what happened the last time the US sat back and minded its own business?

[gcsmith]

I agree that the dethroning of the Korean Workers' Party would be a good thing and could be seen by many as an internationalist moral obligation, but unfortunately an open conflict with the regime in the DPRK is actually a lot more legally tricky than the overthrow of Saddam and the Ba'athists.
The reasons given for second Gulf War were silly and not actually required to make regime change in Iraq legitimate. The Ba'athists had actually already been proven to commit many of the acts which place a regime in danger of being overthrown by the international community as a legal obligation. Those being, the invasion and attempt to assimilate a foreign country into its own territory (Kuwait), the giving of asylum to known terrorists, and the attempted genocide of a cultural minority (the Iraqi Kurds).
All of these conditions, on their own, are sufficient for the international community (United Nations) to be obligated to take action against that regime. And I, and some others, believe that the Second Gulf War was merely finishing what UN forces were obligated to do 10 years ago, at the time of the first Gulf War but instead made the people of Iraq unnecessarily suffer under a decade of brutal international sanctions and the totalitarian rule of a despot.

The problem with North Korea, however, is that its nuclear weapons are no longer under the limitations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its crimes against humanity do not, unfortunately, fall under the criteria to be labelled genocidal and internationally illegal because, when the Genocide Convention was agreed upon, the mass murder of political targets was not defined as genocide, in order to protect the Soviet Union and its gulags.
I believe that those are the main things that make the problem of North Korea so problematic. (I may be wrong in my understanding and welcome corrections.)



I believe they pulled out in 2003 and then declared their first successful test in 2006. That makes it seem likely that they were working on building bombs while under the agreements laid out in the treaty. Whether that has any legal impact or not I am unsure.

Thats an interesting read, not something I had really considered. Personally I believe that war is more of a moral than a legal issue, after all If I go to war, who cares what some other country tells me what i can or cant do, rather, what matters is, is the action im taking right?

Pesonally I don't believe War Is Good, but i believe that war is a neccesary action in the world, Even as a christian I believe war can be right, afterall there is plenty of examples of war in the bible. Not trying to bring religion into the equation, just trying to state personal views.

I think the situation in NK has got to the point that any death of the NK government is no longer Murder, but an act of ridding the world of an evil, although I guess some might say we have to wait for the situation to get worse before the killing of poeple like Kim Jon Un is legitatmate and moral.

---------- Post added 2012-04-03 at 02:36 PM ----------

Does anyone remember what happened the last time the US sat back and minded its own business?

Yes, sadly that was when war was essential to maintaining the good in the world, sadly in some regions where America is involved today that is not the case.

[jibbyjackjoe]

I need a disagree button right now.

I live in America. Do not listen to this guy. I REPEAT! DO NOT WANT!

[LCSscallywag]

If you wanna get real picky and such, the US had a nice isolationism mentality after WW1 all the way up until Dec. 7, 1941. We sold guns, ships, ect. to both sides. We didn't care as long as we made money to get out of our depression and keep US soldiers from going to a war that, at the time, really had nothing to do with us.

Then the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, dragged us into WW2, and from then on we became the World Police.

US Military force ended WW2 in both the European Theater and the Pacific Theater. With the exceptions of the Korean and Vietnam Wars, we've ended every conflict we've stepped in or been dragged into.

Going off of the OP's general statements not based in any sort of facts, it seems to be the habit of most "smaller" nations around the world to ask for US assistance be it either military, finance, or food and then turn around and bash and degrade the US after they've assisted. It seems like sometimes everyone knows the US will help out but then likes to bite the hand that feeds them.

Nukes or not, I personally think we should just go back to an isolationism doctrine and tell the rest of the world to pack sand.

Also, the arguement of "Iran deserves to have nuclear power" is a valid one. The problem is they have been offered refined uranium for energy use from the US and they denied it. This is uranium that is NOT weapons grade and could not be refined to make a weapon. If they are so bent on providing nuclear energy to their people, you'd think they'd accept the cheap (costwise) uranium they are being offered and put it to use. Instead, they just ignore it and keep pushing through to make a bomb to eventually send to Israel. Stopping them from having a nuke is just common sense.

[Clevername]

America is currently fighting 2 wars. I'd hardly call that "stable".

What 2 wars? Last I checked the stan is the only war we're in.

[Sapper]

Technically since the war in Iraq was officially about stopping Weapons of Mass Destruction, America should be invading NK already, firstly they would actually be freeing a real dictatorship, they would garuntee NK would have no nukes, but also they may actually increase their reputation with this war rather than decrease it like others recently have.

The problem with invading NK is that it's not like invading any country in the middle east, whether they fully support them or not, NK is backed by China. We could easily defeat NK, but China would be a whole other story. Even if they didn't help in NK directly, I can all but promise they would go for Japan, since Japans military is for all intensive purposes non-existent. As stupid as Bush was for keeping us in Iraq as long as he did, even he knew it was a dumb idea to invade NK.

[Tastyfish]

Does anyone remember what happened the last time the US sat back and minded its own business?

It spent less money on war? LOL
Don't use the WW2 to support an argument for the US running everywhere freaking out over nukes. It's too easy.

[Deleted]

This is funny beyond belief, the fact that people are using Wikipedia of all things to try and quantify Nuclear arsenals.....

I don't know whether to laugh or go IP hunting and slap some people in the face for being so gullible.

The fact that my Uni lecturers refuse to accept wikipedia entries as reference should be testament enough to it's articles reliability, especially when dealing a topic as sensitive as nuclear armament.

[Tastyfish]

This is funny beyond belief, the fact that people are using Wikipedia of all things to try and quantify Nuclear arsenals.....

I don't know whether to laugh or go IP hunting and slap some people in the face for being so gullible.

The fact that my Uni lecturers refuse to accept wikipedia entries as reference should be testament enough to it's articles reliability, especially when dealing a topic as sensitive as nuclear armament.

Your Uni prob also frowns on the threat of IP hunting too.

[Arantir]

First: The reason USA keeps nuclear weapons around is for deterrent; the United States has stated if we are attacked with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, we reserve the right to retaliate with our nuclear arsenal. This serves, in theory against an actual nation state; not militant organization, to keep conflicts free of WMDs.
Second: Reasons why the US and the world at large do not want certain nations, i.e. Iran, to acquire nuclear capability is due to that nation's own statements as to what this nation desires to do to a certain US ally in the region. This theoretic, combined with the mentality of the Iranian leadership; MAD would have little effect on them, as the desire is to continue the revolution and pave the way for the coming of the Mahdi. In short, it is largely felt if nuclear weapons are acquired, Iran will use them in an offensive manner.

[Maharishi]

Closing this out as it's been effectively discussed, and turned into a nation bashing thread. If you want to continue the discussing of non proliferation or similar issues, feel free to start a new thread, just don't do it with the theme of "x country sucks because..."