Contact
LifestreamAs top nuclear powers constructs new tactical weapons, missile shields, mini-nukes, and stand ready to militarize space, one could ask what treaties are still in effect today? Is it morally viable to stop countries like North Korea and Iran, no matter how twisted and autocratic they might be, from acquiring banned weapons when one side unilaterally not only wields them but keeps improving and in fact deploying them.
4 Responses to “Nuclear Double Standards”
Comments are currently closed.
YES
Elaborate …
You asked:
"Is it morally viable to stop countries like North Korea and Iran, no matter how twisted and autocratic they might be, from acquiring banned weapons when one side unilaterally not only wields them but keeps improving and in fact deploying them."
Just think how much safer the world would be if we (The USA) had prevented anyone else from developing nuclear weapons when we had the chance.
That is probably true. The strategic picture would be so much easier to predict. Not that I think you ever had the chance. I mean, as far as I remember, the soviets had spies that aquired at least part of the riddle of nuclear fusion / fission. I’m sure you didn’t give that away on purpose. And besides, you more or less lended nuclear capability to a few nations like Israel. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…) Even if it seems they really conned you.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/…)
Many others had their own programs running. It was just a matter of time regardless of what you did.
ALSO … It is a fact that the US is the only nuclear power to ever use nuclear weapons in war, against a civilian population even. Hence, the biggest double standard and one that is difficult to dismiss. So far, the US has been no better at non-proliferation and and staying clear of the red button than anyone else could have been expected to. That is perhaps the moral here, that some things should never be wielded unilaterally or at all.
Also, there is the problem that civilian nuclear power is so closely linked to weapons production. The former is obviously the right of every citizen of this planet, to have clean and plentiful energy. In the end one has to place some trust in people. And solve the real, underlying problems, if you feel that someone is willing, as you probably fear, to use nuclear weapons against the US. This pursuit of non-proliferation and status quo is unrealistic because it overlooks the real underlying issue. I.e. why would country X feel the need to use nuclear weapons in the first place? Solve the real issues instead. Get to the source. It would be so much more efficient. This waltz could go on forever and still amount to the same dire conclusion for the US.