America to withdraw troops from EU

RicardoSmith

keu wrote:

lol..geezez..look read back, I was responding to this...


I'm being morally ingdignant..apparantly.

I'm not trying state that the nations of the Middle East have been paragons of virtue, I'm not trying to justify Saddams regime, but I dont look at the US at the global policeman either.

Who else could have persuaded him to leave Kuwait, or to effect a regime change in Iraq?

You never answered the question about whats the problem with atomic weapon use in WWII?

Carpo

RicardoSmith wrote:

Taken in historical context whats the problem with their use of Atomic weapons to end the war in the pacific. Remembering that Japan did not surrender until the 2nd bomb was dropped.

Dwight D Eisenhower wrote:

During [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' [Stimson] was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions.

The use of the nukes against Japan is very debateable.

In regard to the topic. As far as I recall this military pullout has been on the cards for quite some time, since the mid ninties or prehaps before. Since the end of the cold war most of these positions have been fairly pointless as far as I can see (except in special cases like Korea) and so the move was going to happen sooner or later and is a fairly reasonable one. However, the cynic in me cant rule out the political motivation behind the timing of the announcement rather than the pullout itself.

keu

The US used nuclear weapons to end ww2.

in the context of this conversation, that is the only part which is relevant. I have already explained the point of the matter. It's not about justifying the use of or questioning the intent. It's very simple theory.

The fact that they used them during ww2 is effectively irrelevant in todays world.

I disagree. I would think this is the achilles heal of the US. Why shuold the leaders of nations such as Iraq or Iran or afghanistan trust or heed this kind of bigger brother.

The reasoning behind my contribution, was in response to the seemingly anti-American climate. Which has already been defined as being based in jealousy or derived of moral indignation. I just think there is more to it than that.

just my two cents...and I'm out of ciggarettes.

Moriarty

keu wrote:

in the context of this conversation, that is the only part which is relevant. I have already explained the point of the matter. It's not about justifying the use of or questioning the intent. It's very simple theory.

That's a very simplistic and ultimately self-deceiving view to have. Not everything can be reduced to bite-size pieces without losing important information along the way.

keu wrote:

I disagree. I would think this is the achilles heal of the US. Why shuold the leaders of nations such as Iraq or Iran or afghanistan trust or heed this kind of bigger brother.

From the US's perspective it isn't acting as a big brother, it's acting to physically protect itself against regiemes that have openly declared themselves to be hostile to them. The US wouldn't be paying Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan half as much intrest if they didn't pose some sort of percieved threat to the US. It's not a matter of trusting the worlds policeman, it's understanding that if you start threatening that policeman you can't act surprised and claim you weren't warned about the consequences if and when he comes down on you like a ton of bricks.

RicardoSmith

The use of nukes is a debatable as strategic bombing, once you have the benefit of hindsight. At the time there were two views. They went with one of them. It ended the war. We'll never know if they didn't use atomic bombs would it have prolonged the war.

A lot of the anti US sentiment is encouraged by ruling powers in many arab countries. It is used as a means to channel discontent away from themselves. Not that the US doesn't deserve some of the flak it gets. Its just not the back and white picture keu is painting.

keu

That's a very simplistic and ultimately self-deceiving view to have. Not everything can be reduced to bite-size pieces without losing important information along the way.

it is my view and one I am entirely entitled to hold. Its like saying this is a comparitvly minor matter.
Often, in life, it is the minor matters that matter more than everything else. It's a bit like saying that one brick doesn't make much difference to the overall structure of a house. Maybe not. But if that brick is in a key place - or if it is used to make the mould for all the other bricks, its shape and composition is absolutely crucial.

From the US's perspective it isn't acting as a big brother, it's acting to physically protect itself against regiemes that have openly declared themselves to be hostile to them.

The US used the WMD excuse to "liberate" Iraq.
I don't agree with the rest of the statement either.

The US wouldn't be paying Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan half as much intrest if they didn't pose some sort of percieved threat to the US

aer you referring to terrorism?
Islam is not a nation.

I'm off to bed, feel free to have the last word.

Hobbes

keu wrote:

I would think the majority of them were insanely irate about the fact that the US can do what it wants, when it wants and how it wants, without listening to the voices of the rest of the people on this planet.

Doesn't say much for the Americans then who also protested then, does it?

The US haven't used WMD in today's (or yesterday's) climate.

"A weapon crosses the WMD threshold when the consequences of its release overwhelm local responders".

The US has a lot of such weapons and uses them. It is very hypocritical to demand that another country disarms when it has possibly the biggest stockpile of WMD in the world.

ionapaul

Hobbes wrote:

It is very hypocritical to demand that another country disarms when it has possibly the biggest stockpile of WMD in the world.

It is not hypocritical for a nation with great economic, political and military power to use its resources to protect and advance its interests - I also don't accept placing Saddam's Iraq and Bush's America on the same level when discussing WMDs, Saddam gassed his own people and murdered/raped with impunity. Comparing the two is misguided.

As has been said earlier in this thread, the US is not the world's policeman in this matter, they are (and rightfully so) out to look after themselves, their citizens and their economic and political interests. I know we hold the US up to higher standards than all other nations, but that fact is despite Bush's dubious (perhaps personal) motives and the chance that America may be in greater danger than prior to the war, the US went to war to defend its interests and increase its political power by eliminating an evil (IMO) and dangerous tyrant and installing a friendly government.

The benefits to the Iraqi people (possibility of democracy, greater personal freedom, freedom from Saddam's oppression) greatly outweigh (IMO) the negatives caused by the invasion and the subsequent unstability. I am very confident the majority of Iraqis would agree with me.

ionapaul

"A weapon crosses the WMD threshold when the consequences of its release overwhelm local responders"

Use of a gun against an unarmed (but murderous) mob? Use of a high-powered water cannon against soccer hooligans? Seems like almost anything can make the grade here depending on circumstances!

Using pepper spray against an unarmed robber, even? Maybe I don't understand this definition...it is early in the morning

dahamsta

ionapaul wrote:

Saddam gassed his own people and murdered/raped with impunity. Comparing the two is misguided.

America is the only country to have used a disgusting weapon like the atomic bomb against tens of thousands of primarily innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Comparing the two is misguided.

adam

Hobbes

ionapaul wrote:

Using pepper spray against an unarmed robber, even? Maybe I don't understand this definition...it is early in the morning

You don't understand the defination. Local responders relates to police/ambulance/fire brigade/hazmat/etc.

Spraying an unarmed robber with pepper spray is not a WMD.

You also don't understand the defination of hypocrit. Oh and Saddam did not gas his own people. He gassed the Kurds which he doesn't believe are his own people. There is a difference.

ionapaul

dahamsta wrote:

America is the only country to have used a disgusting weapon like the atomic bomb against tens of thousands of primarily innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Comparing the two is misguided.

adam

American bombing raids using 'convential' weapons against Japanese cities killed higher numbers of civilians than the atomic bombs killed. As did British raids on German cities. As did the Russian advance through eastern Prussia to Berlin.

Using convential weapons or the atomic bomb is equally disgusting when considering the death of innocents, no? Civilians are targeted to break the will to fight of a nation - particulary important during total war. War is hell (and murder by another name), innocents always die...and it was believed by many in the military that Japan would not surrender without either a full-scale invasion or using the atomic bomb. Comparing American use of the atomic bomb on Japan to Saddam's use of WMD against the Kurds is misguided in the extreme, and the vast vast majority in the historical establishment will agree with me on that.

ionapaul

Hobbes wrote:

You also don't understand the defination of hypocrit. Oh and Saddam did not gas his own people. He gassed the Kurds which he doesn't believe are his own people. There is a difference.

It is not hypocrisy to attempt to limit dictators' possession or development of WMD. Nor to do so in an attempt to protect your citizens and interests.

Alright, Saddam gassed Iraqi citizens so.

The Corinthian

ionapaul wrote:

It is not hypocrisy to attempt to limit dictators' possession or development of WMD. Nor to do so in an attempt to protect your citizens and interests.

Well, actually it is hypocrisy to have WMD and turn a blind eye to other friendly nations with WMD then to deny nations you don’t like on the basis that you’re doing it for the benefit of World peace.

You can also be a hypocrite when attempting to protect your citizens and interests - all you have to do is claim that you’re doing it for altruistic reasons when in reality those are accidental at best.

Hobbes

ionapaul wrote:

It is not hypocrisy to attempt to limit dictators' possession or development of WMD. Nor to do so in an attempt to protect your citizens and interests.

So it is ok for democratically elected governments to have WMD then? Because that would be ok? Or it is ok for Saddam to own WMD to protect his citizens and intrests? You not see the hypocticisy?

Alright, Saddam gassed Iraqi citizens so.

I told you already. He did not see them as Iraqi citizens (not his people). You also skip over the fact that the US was supporting Saddam around this time and knew full well he had done this at that time. Why? Because it suited the US intrests to have Saddam attacking with Iran.

bonkey

ionapaul wrote:

It is not hypocrisy to attempt to ...

No single action, taken in isolation, can be concluded to be hypocritical. It must first be set against a backdrop of other relevant behaviour.

So, if you want to insist why actions are not hypocritical, you have to explain why they do not show double-standards against comparative action.

e.g. Iraq and Iran were basically forced into allowing inspections. Bush wants this to be world policy for all but the known nuclear nations, with sanctions as a consequence. In the meantime, the US still happily accepts the Israeli's "we ain't telling, and you can't look-see" answer as being no problem whatsoever (because lets remember that Israel is not one of the declared nuclear nations)

jc

ionapaul

The Corinthian wrote:

Well, actually it is hypocrisy to have WMD and turn a blind eye to other friendly nations with WMD then to deny nations you don’t like on the basis that you’re doing it for the benefit of World peace.

You can also be a hypocrite when attempting to protect your citizens and interests - all you have to do is claim that you’re doing it for altruistic reasons when in reality those are accidental at best.

And yet not hypocrisy to attempt to deny WMD to dictators or dangerous nations (subjective of course) while content that democratic or peaceful nations possess them.

ionapaul

Hobbes wrote:

So it is ok for democratically elected governments to have WMD then? Because that would be ok? Or it is ok for Saddam to own WMD to protect his citizens and intrests? You not see the hypocticisy?



I told you already. He did not see them as Iraqi citizens (not his people). You also skip over the fact that the US was supporting Saddam around this time and knew full well he had done this at that time. Why? Because it suited the US intrests to have Saddam attacking with Iran.

Yep, I don't have a problem with the US, Britain, France, Russia, Israel or India holding WMD to protect themselves from attack. Why should I? No I don't think Saddam should have been allowed to have WMD*, as he wasn't protecting his citizens or their interests, he couldn't care less about his citizen's interests. Of course that is my own opinion, maybe he cared a great deal about the average Iraqi. Oops, better make that non-Kurd Iraqi citizen. Make that non-Kurd non-Shia Iraqi citizen. Make that...

*I know none were found/existed following the invasion, before someone points that out

Hobbes

And yet not hypocrisy to attempt to deny WMD to dictators or dangerous nations (subjective of course) while content that democratic or peaceful nations possess them.

Your subjective meaning. It is ok to give Saddam WMD when he is helping the US, but not when he isn't? It was ok for Saddam to use WMD on Iranians? So it was ok for Saddam to kill other muslims by supplying the weapons instead of doing their own dirty work (or rather getting caught after doing their own dirty work)

Lets not also forget that the US also knew that Saddam was going to start the first Gulf war and let him continue on it (They asked him why he was amassing troops at Kuwait and he told them he planned to invade if it was ok by them).

bonkey

ionapaul wrote:

And yet not hypocrisy to attempt to deny WMD to dictators or dangerous nations (subjective of course) while content that democratic or peaceful nations possess them.

And we all know that nation's never change from to "peaceful" to "dangerous", or from being democratic to being dictator-run.

Or if it does, whenever it happens, the new regime hand over all dangerous toys that the friendly/democratic people before them had, and start from scratch.

Contemporary political ideology is one of the worst possible excuses for distinguishing between which nations should and should not be allowed to walk down a one-way road with long-term consequences.

jc

The Corinthian

ionapaul wrote:

And yet not hypocrisy to attempt to deny WMD to dictators or dangerous nations (subjective of course) while content that democratic or peaceful nations possess them.

Actually it is. Hypocrisy is the practice of promoting or professing values that one does not actually practice. The principle of non-proliferation that is espoused in the Occidental world is simply that; of non-proliferation of WMD - not non-proliferation of WMD amongst countries we don’t agree with. The latter is a caveat, and is as morally justifiable as saying that you’ll be faithful to your spouse, only to qualify it by saying except for those occasions when you feel justified not to be.

By your own admission this caveat is subjective. Iraq possessed and used WMD when it was in the US list of ‘friendly’ States. Pakistan presently possesses WMD, including nuclear weapons, yet it’s a dictatorship. Neither are particularly peaceful either, if you consider their relations with neighbouring countries.

Also Israel almost certainly possesses a similar arsenal, yet it’s not even being questioned, while Iran, that does not but probably is developing them, is given the third degree. Yet both are democratic (Iran’s democracy leaves a lot to be desired, but it is still a democracy) and have only ever gone to war in self-defence.

So even your qualification does not hold up to scrutiny and it leaves one, and the international community, with the inescapable conclusion that the principle of non-proliferation is applied on a basis of political expediency rather than any professed ideal. And that’s before we even question the moral authority of the West to demand that others should “do as I say, don’t do as I do”.

Look at it as much as you want, but it is nigh on impossible to define the inconsistent application of this principle as anything other than hypocrisy.

ionapaul

bonkey wrote:

And we all know that nation's never change from to "peaceful" to "dangerous", or from being democratic to being dictator-run.

I agree with you that if a nation goes from peaceful democracy to warlike dictatorship, something needs to be done - if the Allies used force sooner against Hitler, millions of lives (conceivably) would have been saved. Sorry to invoke Godwin, but those damn Nazis certainly have left us with many great examples to use.

History (a long-term view if you will) has shown us that certain democracies are reluctant to use WMD, except in the most extreme of circumstances to protect themselves or save citizen's lives. The US are the only nation to use atomic weapons, used to end a savage war, end an extremely brutal and oppressive regime and save American servicemen's lives. I believe that Britain, Russia, France, Isreal, India* and probably modern-day China would only use their WMDs as a last resort - that is why I have no great problem with their stockpiles. Saddam, Kim Jong Il, Libya are different matters, again in my opinion, and I approve of any measures taken to limit WMD possession by these dictators or governments.

*although of course a possibility, I am confident none of these countries will go from 'peaceful democracy' to 'dangerous dictatorships' in the near or not-so-near future

ionapaul

The Corinthian wrote:

By your own admission this caveat is subjective. Iraq possessed and used WMD when it was in the US list of ‘friendly’ States. Pakistan presently possesses WMD, including nuclear weapons, yet it’s a dictatorship. Neither are particularly peaceful either, if you consider their relations with neighbouring countries.

Also Israel almost certainly possesses a similar arsenal, yet it’s not even being questioned, while Iran, that does not but probably is developing them, is given the third degree. Yet both are democratic (Iran’s democracy leaves a lot to be desired, but it is still a democracy) and have only ever gone to war in self-defence.

So even your qualification does not hold up to scrutiny and it leaves one, and the international community, with the inescapable conclusion that the principle of non-proliferation is applied on a basis of political expediency rather than any professed ideal. And that’s before we even question the moral authority of the West to demand that others should “do as I say, don’t do as I do”.

Look at it as much as you want, but it is nigh on impossible to define the inconsistent application of this principle as anything other than hypocrisy.

I think we should agree to disagree on this one. The non-proliferation principle as accepted by the US following the buildup to MAD levels during the Cold War aims to reduce already existing WMD (or nuclear) stockpiles and limit the development of new stocks. The NPT (coming into force in 1970) called for the ongoing reduction of existing stockpiles, the restriction of international trading of nuclear technologies or knowledge, and agreement of non-nuclear countries not to seek to develop nuclear weapons or explosive devices. The US has dismantled over 13,000 nuclear warheads since 1970. The former Soviet states have dismantled large numbers also.

So again I would state that the US is not being hypocritical in its stance to limit WMD development by what it deems dangerous nations or governments. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea (amoung others such as India and Pakistan - both censured by the US in this regard) have broken the terms of this international treaty. The US has not. Nor does your version of the non-proliferation principle gel with the principle as accepted by the US government.

Feel free to continue to try to make me accept that the US is acting hypocritically in this instance. I may crack under pressure

bonkey

ionapaul wrote:

History (a long-term view if you will) has shown us that certain democracies are reluctant to use WMD, except in the most extreme of circumstances to protect themselves or save citizen's lives.

I would say firstly that history - when limited to the period in which WMDs realistically have existed - is a short term view. You're effectively talking about the past 100 years. Many nations which are under 100 years old are still considered "young" nations, so its hardly a long-term view.

The US are the only nation to use atomic weapons,

To date.

used to end a savage war, end an extremely brutal and oppressive regime and save American servicemen's lives.

Arguable.

I believe that Britain, Russia, France, Isreal, India* and probably modern-day China would only use their WMDs as a last resort

But you missed my point. You believe that modern day Britain et al will behave in this way. You have absolutely no notion what the regimes / administrations in charge of each of these nations in (say) 20 years time will or will not be willing to do. You may be willing to assume what they will be, but thats a blind guess, to be honest. In the 1920s, very few people were predicting a second world war, led by the Germans. You're banking an awful lot on being "fairly sure", don't you think?

I, on the other hand, know that while these nations are allowed to continue their "hold em if you have em, but don't acquire them" hypocracy that they will have nuclear weapons in 20 years time....and that we quite simply cannot know the political landscape that far down the line.

So your argument that we shouldn't allow nukes to fall into the hands of nations we can't trust should mean that we cannot allow nukes to remain in the hands of nations we can trust today....as we cannot be certain (i.e. we cannot trust) what that nation will be in 20 years time.

But it doesn't mean this...as your continued argument as to why these nations should be allowed hold their weapons illustrates rather nicely.

Ergo, we are unevenly applying our standards.

If you want to look at a shorter time-frame, just look at Iran and Iraq. Both have gone from friend to enemy (of the US) within the past 20 years. Hell, Pakistan who has nuclear weapons was a rogue state at the start of Bush's administration, and is now an invaluable ally in the fight against terrorism whom the US is proud and happy to work side-by-side with.

Four years, no change in administration on either side, and relatively little change in overall behaviour from both, and Pakistan is reclassified from a nation who - like N.Korea - should have its weapons taken away from it, to an invaluable ally who's possession isn't even an issue.

This is the reality. You can look at why a failrly-applied version of the same logic may make sense, but thats not reality. The reality is that if you're in with the lads you get a far smoother ride than if you're not. This while the lads are espousing the whole "for the good of mankind" crap as their reasoning for picking on the bad guys.

Saddam, Kim Jong Il, Libya are different matters, again in my opinion, and I approve of any measures taken to limit WMD possession by these dictators or governments.

See my point about Pakistan. Less than 4 years is all it took for them to suddenly be trustworthy and worthy of their nukes.

Consider also that Saddam was happily supplied his non-nuclear WMD base materials from the same big players who now want to ensure no-one else can play with the toys they already have themselves. He was given them when he was considered a safe bet, and no-one considered what the implications would be for when he was no longer so safe...

*although of course a possibility, I am confident none of these countries will go from 'peaceful democracy' to 'dangerous dictatorships' in the near or not-so-near future

If you're happy to live with that....good for you.

I notice that you didn't classify either China, Pakistan or Russia in that list....the three "bad boys who are currently good". I wonder what your stance is about them? They could turn "bad" again...so shouldn't we take their nukes off them???

I would also point out that I've limited my examples to a timeframe of about 20 years. My life expectancy says that my lifetime will cover another 40 years, and climbs all the time. Look at the world 40 years ago, and compare the good guys and bad guys. Look back 100 years - a reasonable timeframe considering that WMDs (e.g. mustard gas) were in use for about that length of time. How many nations have switched sides, or changed drastically?

Finally, I find it somewhat amusing that the nation involved in the most armed conflicts in the last decade, who has used nukes, and who wants to develop cleaner nukes so it can use them on the battlefield in the future qualifies as a peaceful one.

But hey, like I said...if you're happy, good for you. You're still supporting a "do what I say, not what I do" policy.

jc

bonkey

ionapaul wrote:

I think we should agree to disagree on this one. The non-proliferation principle as accepted by the US following the buildup to MAD levels during the Cold War aims to reduce already existing WMD (or nuclear) stockpiles and limit the development of new stocks.
...
The US has dismantled over 13,000 nuclear warheads since 1970. The former Soviet states have dismantled large numbers also.

Aren't you referring to (at least in part) to the ABM Treaty which the US signed, and which Dubya has since withdrawn the US from, as he was no longer willing to allow the restrictions that it placed on the US being able to develop technologies to defend itself with.

His exact words included the following :

"And we must have the freedom and the flexibility to develop effective defences against those attacks. Defending the American people is my highest priority as Commander in Chief, and I cannot and will not allow the United States to remain in a treaty that prevents us from developing effective defences"

So, again, we have a situation where the US feels it is not correct that treaties should limit it from developing defensive capability.

We have a situation where the US - and every single nation who admits to possessing nuclear weapons - claims its current nuclear weapons are for defensive purposes only.

And we have a situation where the US still feels that other nations need to be limited in their development of what they claim are defensive capabilities, and which the US' own versions of which are defensive capabilities.

So, the US should not be limited in order to protect itself, and maybe not the other nations who have declared their arsenals (except those who should, like N. Korea), and definitely not some of the nations who haven't declared their arsenals (like Israel).....but anyone else....well....in broad terms, no...they shouldn't have the same freedom to develop the defensive capabilities that the nuclear nations already have.....

Come on....its hypocracy. You know it.

jc

ionapaul

bonkey wrote:

But you missed my point. You believe that modern day Britain et al will behave in this way. You have absolutely no notion what the regimes / administrations in charge of each of these nations in (say) 20 years time will or will not be willing to do. You may be willing to assume what they will be, but thats a blind guess, to be honest. In the 1920s, very few people were predicting a second world war, led by the Germans. You're banking an awful lot on being "fairly sure", don't you think?

I, on the other hand, know that while these nations are allowed to continue their "hold em if you have em, but don't acquire them" hypocracy that they will have nuclear weapons in 20 years time....and that we quite simply cannot know the political landscape that far down the line.

So your argument that we shouldn't allow nukes to fall into the hands of nations we can't trust should mean that we cannot allow nukes to remain in the hands of nations we can trust today....as we cannot be certain (i.e. we cannot trust) what that nation will be in 20 years time.

If you want to look at a shorter time-frame, just look at Iran and Iraq. Both have gone from friend to enemy (of the US) within the past 20 years. Hell, Pakistan who has nuclear weapons was a rogue state at the start of Bush's administration, and is now an invaluable ally in the fight against terrorism whom the US is proud and happy to work side-by-side with.

Four years, no change in administration, and relatively little change in overall outlook, and Pakistan is reclassified from a nation who - like N.Korea - should have its weapons taken away from it, to an invaluable ally who should of course be allowed to keep them.

This is the reality. You can look at why a failrly-applied version of the same logic may make sense, but thats not reality. The reality is that if you're in with the lads you get a far smoother ride than if you're not. This while the lads are espousing the whole "for the good of mankind" crap as their reasoning for picking on the bad guys.

Also, I find it somewhat amusing that the nation involved in the most armed conflicts in the last decade, who has used nukes, and who wants to develop cleaner nukes so it can use them on the battlefield qualifies as a peaceful one.

jc

Well...(big breath)...as I may have posted in an earlier thread, the non-proliferation principle as accepted by the US, Britain, all who have signed up to the UN's NPT is a little different to what you have described; 'hold 'em if you have 'em, but don't acquire 'em', is rather 'reduce 'em if you have 'em, but don't acquire 'em'. As the US, Britain, Russia at least have done - reduced their WMD stockpile. If the countries I have previously described as 'peaceful' would get rid of their nuclear stockpiles this evening, I would be happy. This is not something we are discussing though, is it?

Saddam developing a single atomic bomb scared me a lot more than the US's thousands of warheads. Maybe that's just me.

Actually a number of commentators during the 1920s were predicting future warlike behaviour from the Germans, well before the Nazis came to power. A Maginot Line-type defence was suggested by French politicians in the mid-20s, a few years before the fortified line was built. Just saying...

Both India and Pakistan (who have openly conducted tests) have been censured for their breaking of the NPT. Has a US government spokesperson actually come out and said that Pakistan should of course be allowed to keeps its nuclear weapons?

Maybe the crux of the matter comes down to your last paragraph, our differing views on America. I see it as a peaceful nation that has been a force for good since its inception. Others see it as the great Anti-Christ, bent on global oppression and ready to cut all of our throats.

ionapaul

bonkey wrote:

We have a situation where the US - and every single nation who admits to possessing nuclear weapons - claims its current nuclear weapons are for defensive purposes only.

And we have a situation where the US still feels that other nations need to be limited in their development of what they claim are defensive capabilities, and which the US' own versions of which are defensive capabilities.

So, the US should not be limited in order to protect itself, and maybe not the other nations who have declared their arsenals (except those who should, like N. Korea), and definitely not some of the nations who haven't declared their arsenals (like Israel).....but anyone else....well....in broad terms, no...they shouldn't have the same freedom to develop the defensive capabilities that the nuclear nations already have.....

Come on....its hypocracy. You know it.

jc

The US has dismantled over 13,000 warheads since 1970.

You and I know that the reason the US wants to limit nuclear proliferation by Iraq, Iran and North Korea is that it fears aggressive actions from these nations. Yes, it has less problem with the existing nuclear weapons held by countries that it does not believe will use them aggressively against it. Despite this, it has censured both Pakistan and India. No, I still don't see this as hypocrisy, as those were the terms of the NPT as accepted by the US!

I would see it as hypocrisy if the US wanted to limit the development of nuclear weapons in Iraq, Iran, and North Korea if the US actually believed those three countries were peace-loving and would only use them in defence, and encouraged other peace-loving nations to develop their own nuclear deterrent. The US currently does not encourage non-nuclear declared nations to develop a nuclear deterrent, even peaceful allies, which is entirely in line with the NPT.

bonkey

ionapaul wrote:

The US has dismantled over 13,000 warheads since 1970.

And has since announced intentions to develop battle-field nuclear weapons, and has withdrawn from the ABM treaty.

Current US policy is to advance itself in the exact field that it doesn't want other nations advancing themselves in. This is hypocritical.

You and I know that the reason the US wants to limit nuclear proliferation by Iraq, Iran and North Korea is that it fears aggressive actions from these nations.

I've never suggested otherwise. I've simply said that wanting to limit these nations, whilst insisting that the US as a nation itself should not be similarly limited is hypocritical.

If the US agreed to the same restrictions it wanted to place on others, I'd have no problem. If it even had the gumption to apply its own "standards" more even-handedly, rather than in an "we-ll make an exception if you're a flavour of the month" approach, I'd have almost no problem.

But it doesn't do this. It is applying an entirely uneven-handed policy for the best of intentions, I grant you. So its well-intentioned hypocracy, but still hypocracy.

Despite this, it has censured both Pakistan and India.

Really? How? What censures has it handed out, other than saying "we're very disappointed".

Nigh on 4 years ago, Pakistan and North Korea were declared rogue nations. Both had, or were near to having, nuclear capability. Since then, the US has gone on to become bestest buddies with Musharraf and the Pakistani nation, whilst steadfastly refusing to realistically discuss any sort of negotiated settlement with North Korea.

Pakistan's possession of nuclear weapons, today, to the US, is a non-issue. North Korea's is far from same. When both were Rogue Nations, both were equally a threat. What has really changed? Nothing.

The US currently does not encourage non-nuclear declared nations to develop a nuclear deterrent,

Whilst advancing a program to develop new nuclear capability itself.

Its still "do as I say, and not as I do".

And while you keep on about the "the terms of the NPT as accepted by the US", you haven't yet addressed the US defense of its own withdrawal from the ABM treaty, ostensibly for defensive purposes. And when you do, please bear in mind the US reaction to North Korea withdrawing - equally legally - from the NPT it had signed, also ostensibly for defensive purposes.

Which brings me back to :

Has a US government spokesperson actually come out and said that Pakistan should of course be allowed to keeps its nuclear weapons?

Well, the last time I heard President Bush talk about the issue himself (on CNN, not in person), he was appealing for an increase in the powers of the IAEA following the initial findings in Iraq. His stance at the time was that all nations who had declared their existing nuclear capability should be allowed to remain "as is". Nations who did not declare, and were subsequently found to be researching, or to have capability, should be censured.

Pakistan fall clearly into the former (self-declared nuclear), and this was the vision of what the President of the nation wanted...so yes. The US government spokesperson has effectively come out and said that Pakistan should be allowed to keep its nukes.

jc
jc

ionapaul

I completely agree that the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty following September 11th was a bad move by President Bush, who used the terrorist attacks to justify this backward step. Hopefully if Kerry gets in the entire 'missile defence' scheme will be dropped, as I doubt it will work as hoped and instead will end up being a colossal waste of money for the American taxpayer.
As regards censuring India and Pakistan, the US imposed sanctions on both countries in 1978, 1990 and 1998 following their nuclear programme development and subsequent tests. The sanctions were lifted following September 11th.

edit: sanctions imposed by the US on Pakistan in 1999 following their most recent nuclear test remain in place I believe...but I could be wrong

RicardoSmith

US policy has always been to protect its own interests. Theres nothing new about that. A lot of these countries don't even have basic services. Do people really think they need atomic weapons? Why?