Is the US justified in trying to prevent other countries from developing nuclear weapons, or is this hypocritical and ultimately self-serving?
2006-07-06 05:10:31 · 9 answers · asked by kennyfraser 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
This is not an anti-US question,
The US not only has the most nukes but is the only country ever to use them.
2006-07-06 05:32:00 · update #1
The US doesn't seem to believe in the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you").
The US thinks it's perfectly acceptable to order other countries to stop research, if the US doesn't like the results. The US also thinks it's completely valid to invade other countries and topple their governments, because we don't like what those governments are doing to their citizens.
With this level of hypocrisy, any concept of valid justification based on legal principles has already been thrown out of the window. The only justification the US seeks to recognize any more is might-makes-right. Those in power are allowed to use that power to accomplish their own agendas, regardless of what the laws say.
So, sure, the US is justified. Not legally or ethically, though.
2006-07-06 05:12:46 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Is the UN justified? They also seek to prevent other countries from developing nuclear weapons. A lot of countries seek to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Why single out the US? Got a problem with the US? If so, this is not a US-only issue. Which is why I must laugh at your ignorance.
2006-07-06 05:18:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Does america of a have the right to stay away from different international places from coming up nuclear guns? No america of a does not have the right. although in means Politics, the right has not some thing to do with it. america of a did not have the right to invade Panama or Grenada lower back in the 1980's yet they did it besides. Argentina did not have the right to invade the Falklands yet that did not end them. Israel, Pakistan and India all advanced their very own atomic guns and no one tried to end them. With Iran, the question is, ought to america of a ( or a proxy) attack Iran and take out the nuclear flowers or is it extra acceptable to take a seat lower back and need they not in any respect use those guns? excellent has not some thing to do with it.
2016-11-01 07:32:32 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, the fewer there are out there the better. Regardless of the past history, we need to make sure no more of these weapons are developed. Especially some f**k*ng place like Iran. Those nuts would blow their own country up if it killed a jew in the process. Imagine how long it would take them to use them once they got them, 5 seconds? Oops I forgot, Islam is a peaceful religion. Sorry.
2006-07-06 05:18:22 · answer #4 · answered by 1,1,2,3,3,4, 5,5,6,6,6, 8,8,8,10 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The U.S. is justified cause they aren't preventing trustworthy Countries like Britain, Israel and India from having them but they are fighting to prevent the Untrustworthy like Iran from having them.
2006-07-06 05:22:06 · answer #5 · answered by MrCool1978 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes it is justified providing it shows true leadership and not the current crap and leads the world to a peaceful life thats fair for the whole world.
2006-07-06 05:15:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
sure....we want to stay on top. "it's good to be king" and the world is alot safer w/out idiots having nuclear weapons.
2006-07-06 05:32:02 · answer #7 · answered by wally l 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes most don't even care about life. thoses who would blow themselfs up to harm peoples need no nukes
2006-07-06 05:13:31 · answer #8 · answered by idontkno 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We are still at war with north korea, why would we want to see them do that?
2006-07-06 05:13:21 · answer #9 · answered by Stand 4 somthing Please! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋