North Korea launched a long range missle.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I agree with you.

Esp since this has already happened. Twice. And they were both ours. We detonated them.

And it was the right decision at the time.

[UtahDan]

Who wants to be submissive? Nobody is saying that the US can't dominate the paint.

The hypocrisy is in telling another country to not make even a single bomb. Not even a bomb, but the long-range missile technology that would be used to carry a bomb (as well as a satellite). We have thousands of them and we are the only ones in history (so far) to use them in war. Yet these other countries are the danger.

You seem to have enrolled in the MyBoahNoah School of Obama Strawmen. The pics of the deep bow were funny, admittedly. What was he doing in those pics? Isn't that where his State Department guy is supposed to be helping him?

Come on DDD. We are really the equivalent of Iran and North Korea for purposes of analyzing who might deploy a nuke? Our grand republic with all the safeguards in place that have so far prevented that is the same as the theocracy in Iran and the dictatorship in Pyongyang? I know you are having fun a little here, but that is hypocrisy? It is hypocritical as well for me to own a gun if I believe in laws that say felons shouldn't have them? You are really down with these countries having nukes, seriously? That doesn't represent any threat in your mind that is greater than us having them?

FU, we're through.

[TripletDaddy]

And it was the right decision at the time.

I wasn't born, but I wouldn't disagree with this.

You are missing my point. I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Of course we know about it and we have turned a blind eye because we think it is good for them to have them. It deters yet another war against them.

Look Jeff, the moral high ground has nothing to do with anything in international relations. It is all about power. What you can do, what you can't do. Capabilities. Strong nations exercise power in a more naked way at times, but at other times talk morality, etc. But whatever they do, they do it to try to bring about some desirable end and utilize whatever utensil is best adapted to that job. Weak nations spend a lot of time talking about the right and wrong of things because their best chance of getting what they want is to persuade the population of the stronger state that it is "right."

Is that cynical? Sure, but every nation is. Not one country gets into any agreement, or stays in one, when it is against their interest to do so. That is us and everyone else. So if the argument goes anywhere near the idea that we should do right because it will inspire others to do right, that is really naive.

Now, if you want to argue that we should reign in Israel because that would enhance our power because it would increase our standing and make other nations more likely to also disarm, that is more tenable but equally incorrect. The simple reason is that no matter what we do with respect to Israel, the other middle eastern nations are STILL going to do whatever they think is in their best interest to do. Take away all of Israels nukes tomorrow (which by the way is a pipe dream, we could take every penny from them and they would not give those up, there is some additional naivitee in the notion that we control them) and Iran has more incentive to develop its own capability, not less. In other words, even if you are not as cynical as I am and you believe that the world would give us a big round of applause and lots of style points for stopping proliferation in Israel, you are nuts if you think it would motivate them to do the same. It just wouldn't. It is also worth pointing out that Israel is not a signatory to the non proliferation treaty and had its capability well in place when treaty was signed, so, we're not really talking about proliferation. We are talking about something that predates that notion.

Indeed, that is a very cynical approach. We are all for non-proliferation for our enemies, but it's a free-for-all for our friends. The problem is, our friends sometimes end up being our enemies. A more defensible, and ultimately safer strategy would be to pursue non-proliferation everywhere. I am not at all convinced that a nuclear Israel makes the world safer.

And BTW, I certainly don't believe that we control Israel. Not by a long shot. Theoretically we could, but we don't.

(also, please don't confuse my position with DDD's position)

[byu71]

Who wants to be submissive? Nobody is saying that the US can't dominate the paint.

The hypocrisy is in telling another country to not make even a single bomb. Not even a bomb, but the long-range missile technology that would be used to carry a bomb (as well as a satellite). We have thousands of them and we are the only ones in history (so far) to use them in war. Yet these other countries are the danger.

You seem to have enrolled in the MyBoahNoah School of Obama Strawmen. The pics of the deep bow were funny, admittedly. What was he doing in those pics? Isn't that where his State Department guy is supposed to be helping him?

Actually I am a died in the wool environmentalist. I believe strongly in the survival of the fitest. I don't think the Lion as he goes around marking his territory with his pee wonders if he is marking an area bigger than his neighbor Lion that happens to weigh 70lbs less.

[TripletDaddy]

Come on DDD. We are really the equivalent of Iran and North Korea for purposes of analyzing who might deploy a nuke? Our grand republic with all the safeguards in place that have so far prevented that is the same as the theocracy in Iran and the dictatorship in Pyongyang? I know you are having fun a little here, but that is hypocrisy? It is hypocritical as well for me to own a gun if I believe in laws that say felons shouldn't have them? You are really down with these countries having nukes, seriously? That doesn't represent any threat in your mind that is greater than us having them?

FU, we're through.

No, of course I can see why we think we are right.

I can also see why all those Muslims were cheering in the street when the 2 towers fell. Everyone thinks they are right.

And there are a load of people that are sick of the imperialism of the USA.

My point is that we are not in a great position to tell anyone to do anything with their metal tubes and uranium when our track record is thus:

1. We are the only country to have detonated these things.
2. We have more of them then probably every other country in the world.

Or, in the alternative, I have no problem telling others what to do so long as we admit that we are being patently hypocritical in doing so.

Thus far, though...no, I don't think there is some great threat to us that NoKo has a missile. I also don't own guns in my house. We have covered all of this before.

Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are out to get me. Someone recently said something like that. I can't remember his name......

[TripletDaddy]

Actually I am a died in the wool environmentalist. I believe strongly in the survival of the fitest. I don't think the Lion as he goes around marking his territory with his pee wonders if he is marking an area bigger than his neighbor Lion that happens to weigh 70lbs less.

I can get with this. I doesn't have any pretense to it. Just plain and simple: I am bigger and stronger and I will kill you.

Another honest person to add to the queue.

[byu71]

I can get with this. I doesn't have any pretense to it. Just plain and simple: I am bigger and stronger and I will kill you.

Another honest person to add to the queue.

Let me make something clear that I may have not made clear. I am not going to kill you just because I am bigger and stronger, I am going to kill you because you piss me off. The fact I am bigger and stronger allows me to be pissed off and do something about it.

[TripletDaddy]

Let me make something clear that I may have not made clear. I am not going to kill you just because I am bigger and stronger, I am going to kill you because you piss me off. The fact I am bigger and stronger allows me to be pissed off and do something about it.

That is actually even more honest than you may realize, esp in the context of this thread.

You just got bumped up in the queue. Thank you.

[MindfulCoug]

What evidence can you point to that supports your argument that the USA has an ambition of "running a one-polar world?" The USA is concerned with what every country is concerned with: its own security. If you have followed American politics you will note that the last President's party was soundly thrown from office in large part because many Americans thought we were too unilateral in our approach to many issues. The USA does not begin to have the capability of being the single pole in this world. Though we are unmatched militarily and economically, the stark truth is that (as we see over and over) this power cannot be effectively used to bring about the outcomes we want. Otherwise, how to explain that we fail to get what we want over and over. We cannot even prevent NK, which is frankly is an impoverished little third world nation, from getting nukes and building delivery systems for them. One would think a hegemon (which is what you say we are or aspire to be) could fix that problem with a snap of the fingers. In point of fact we have no such ambition and could not exert hegemonic control even if we wanted to. Your assertion that this is our aim is the parroting of propaganda which gets repeated frequently in your part of the world with little if any critical analysis. If the USA really does want to dominate the globe, then any security action by a government fearful of this would be easily justified to its people. No wonder so many claim this is the case to their people who, inculcated in anti-western sentiments on cultural and social ground, are all to eager to believe it.

We are not a fearful nation ,has never been .We are the people who bare-handedly threw away a US backed dictator who had made life a miserable tragedy for people. We also had to encounter with one of the most shocking terrorist network (who killed our president and prime minister in one day,as well as thousands of innocent people back in 80s) but we did not take any violent action against our neighbors who again in a us lead concert would fund and support them.

But when 9/11 happened , you reacted in away like the world has come to its end (as American bloods are too precious to be shed by terrorists )and waged a war that cost millions of lives and bucks.Yet terrorist are taking people's lives,just not Americans ,so its good .

You should go back and read the treaty. What you have said there reflects a pretty serious misunderstanding of what it does and does not say. First, it does not have any requirement that the nuclear states disarm but rather in the very most general terms in its preamble states this as a goal. Second, non-nuclear countries can develop nuclear capability for civilian only upon condition that they demonstrate no military application is being pursued. Guess who won't allow inspections?

May be you should need to go back and read about Iran nuclear program case in IAEA and its unilateral and voluntarily actions to provide international trust and company to get a better idea outside of your box.

Third the treaty does state that nukes won't be used against non-nuclear states but NATO nations have said from the beginning that they consider the treaty to be suspended in times of war under its own provisions. That is not new. Is this the breach you are talking about? What is your point?

No ,its not new .neither is overruling international conventions whenever it suits your interest and playing with words in order to take advantage of them.

The difference between Israel and its neighbors is that whatever else Israel has done that is morally wrong, it has not sought to remove its neighbors from the map as political entities. Nor does it have on going policies and stated agendas that involve the destruction of any of its neighbors. But as to Israels nuclear program. You are aware, aren't you, that it was the French who provided the Israeli with both the technology and the uranium, correct? The USA didn't even find out about the program until 1958 when reconnaissance aircraft took photos of construction of the nuclear facility and that it was two years before it was confirmed to be such? I'm not sure why Israel's nuclear capability is being laid the the feet of the USA by you and others in this thread. I think there are some uninformed assumptions there.

However Israels capability came about, it has had nukes since the 1960s and how many times had it used or even threatened to use them for offensive purposes? They are a deterrent only and no one at this juncture can say with a straight face that they fear a first strike from Israel with the possible exception of one nation who is developing its own program and whose leaders keep saying they want to use them and also say they desire to wipe Israel from the map.

I am not sure if i should answer to this part .The irony is just as rich as it can be . Israel existence is equal to Palestine annihilation ,and who is unaware of Zionist dream of having the promised land from Egypt to Iraq, if not beyond .

I hate playing blame game here,but how could you possibly not blame your country of opposing Israel developing nuclear weapons ,but saluting it to oppose Iran nuclear peaceful program which has received no single evidence of diversion provided by IAEA.

[BlueHair]

Come on DDD. We are really the equivalent of Iran and North Korea for purposes of analyzing who might deploy a nuke? Our grand republic with all the safeguards in place that have so far prevented that is the same as the theocracy in Iran and the dictatorship in Pyongyang? I know you are having fun a little here, but that is hypocrisy? It is hypocritical as well for me to own a gun if I believe in laws that say felons shouldn't have them? You are really down with these countries having nukes, seriously? That doesn't represent any threat in your mind that is greater than us having them?

FU, we're through.

I don't think the gun analogy works. For the gun analogy to work, the felons would be us. We committed the gun crime. We wouldn't be allowed nukes and every other country would because they've never used them.

Obviously, I don't want North Korea to have nukes. I don't really worry about it though, because there is no way they would ever use them. We would annihilate them if they did. To me, worrying about nuclear war is equivalent to being scared the world is going to end in 2012. Not gonna happen.

[UtahDan]

I don't think the gun analogy works. For the gun analogy to work, the felons would be us. We committed the gun crime. We wouldn't be allowed nukes and every other country would because they've never used them.

Obviously, I don't want North Korea to have nukes. I don't really worry about it though, because there is no way they would ever use them. We would annihilate them if they did. To me, worrying about nuclear war is equivalent to being scared the world is going to end in 2012. Not gonna happen.

So you would advocate scrapping the non proliferation treaty and allowing the free exchange of nuclear technology and materials to any state who wants it because, in the end, no one would use them. If you don't think NK would ever use a nuke then why do you care if it has one?

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

To me, worrying about nuclear war is equivalent to being scared the world is going to end in 2012. Not gonna happen.

Looks like we should be worried about 2012, http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics...-for-2012.html

[UtahDan]

I am not sure if i should answer to this part .The irony is just as rich as it can be . Israel existence is equal to Palestine annihilation ,and who is unaware of Zionist dream of having the promised land from Egypt to Iraq, if not further .

I hate playing blame game here,but how could you possibly not blame your country of opposing Israel developing nuclear weapons ,but saluting it to oppose Iran nuclear peaceful program which has recieved no single evidence of diversion provided by IAEA.

Israeli existence is equal to Palestine's annihilation. Hmmmm. As I was saying to Lebowski before, I just don't remember Israel getting rid of a country called Palestine. Now I am starting to doubt myself.

Look, I agree that the whole "who struck John" is not useful. If you believe that Israel wants to possess a promised land from Egypt to Iraq (or beyond) and that the USA aspires to world domination we just don't have enough common ground to have an intelligent conversation with each other on the subject of nuclear proliferation or much else relative to international relations. If you really do believe these things then I suppose I understand why you think as you do.

[BlueHair]

So you would advocate scrapping the non proliferation treaty and allowing the free exchange of nuclear technology and materials to any state who wants it because, in the end, no one would use them. If you don't think NK would ever use a nuke then why do you care if it has one?

I honestly don't care who has a nuke. For me, it all boils down to energy. The world needs nuclear energy.

Why would NK nuke us? If we are so afraid of being nuked, we need to rethink the way we treat other nations.