Are we right telling another country that thy don't have the right to protect themselves?

Question

Do you think its right for us to tell these other countrys that we can have bombs but they can't is this fair ? Is this right? if you were in there shoes what do you think thy would say? would you put up with it?

Don't get mad its just a question I want to see how people feel about this scence it is such a hot issue right now

Answer 1

no

Answer 2

No those other countries have the right to have and produce weapons to protect themselves. We would feel very intimidated if we were told how and what weapons we could have or make. We only get the media drama our government wants us to have. Look how Bush and his people are controlling the New York Times for the fact that they published information that the Bush administration was watching Americans bank accounts. We are not being told the truth about what is going on and why those countries are worried enough to make weapons to protect themselves. We have no right to tell them they do not have the right to protect themselves against the US or any other country that may want to attack them. The news has pointed out may times that the Bush administration has lied to the American public. And committed fraud against the American public.

We have weapons of mass destruction, thus if we can say other countries do not have the right to have them. Then they have the right to tell us we can not have them. When we went into agreement with Russia in the arm agreement we lied and did not give up all of our great arms as set forth in the agreement. China had ask us to stop using our spy planes over their country, yet we continued to use them there. Then when a China pilot tried to scare off one of our spy planes the spy plane and the pilot hit. Was it our fault or his. Well we were over their air space, had they violated our air space in that fashion we would have shot them down. But as it was our plane and the China plane touched in the air, killing the China pilot and forcing our plane down. Yet China held no grudge and let our plane leave after repairs were made.

And as for wyrd 1, it is very obvious what the question concerns.

Answer 3

This is a good and tough question I wrestle with myself. But I think the origins of it go back to nuclear non-proliferation treaties that were big during the cold war when the US and Russia were armed to the teeth with nukes. Also, other treaties and agreements between individual countries. The US has been great at "buying off" countries by paying them, selling them weapons, selling them dams, etc, to get them to do what we want.

So, if one of those paid off countries changes its mind, then I guess that's breach of promise, or something.

Then there's the UN, which has deteriorated into a useless white elephant that is impotent. But in the early days, I think it had some international rules that applied to all nations.

If someone has a good black and white answer, I'll be anxious to read it.

ADDED: Wow, you have gotten some great replies. Let me add that your question asked about defending itself. A missile that can travel around the world and hit the US can hardly be described as a defensive weapon. And, yes, as some of the other replies state, there are several dictators now who don't like us.

And finally, YES, Kim Jong-Il suffers from too much in-breeding I think.

Answer 4

No, WE don't, the UN supposedly tries. My worries don't involve North Korea. My worries concern China, Pakistan, India, Russia & Israel, all countries with Atomic/Hydrogen bombs and none of those countries are too stable.
It just takes one nutcase. In the U.S. not one person can just trigger (at least that's my educated hope), when I see Russia, and the military in Russia (where the left hand doesn't seem to know what the right hand is doing) I sometimes wonder why we didn't have a few launches yet.

Answer 5

Kim's been launching rockets for years. He only does it when other countries aren't giving him money. All he wants is cash. He's not interested in helping his starving people. The only difference is now he has nukes.
Do you think it's right to have such a person hold that much destructive power?
Unfortunately I live in WA state, where his latest missile is capable of reaching. So yeah, he needs to be stopped.

Answer 6

I agree with you. the US is a superpower that has no qualms about throwing it's weight around, and imposing it's will on other countries.
I think it would be a cold day in hell before the US would allow UN Inspectors to check out their weapons, yet they demanded and got the right to have inspections done in other countries.
The US is perceived as being arrogant by many other countries because they interfere with other country's right to self-determination.

Answer 7

It works like this.....nuclear weapons can destroy the world. so the couple countries that have them, knowing this, have decided that as few folks as possible should have them. Simple and totally, unfair...but it has kept us all alive.

Think of a world where every single country had lots of nukes. Think anyone would use them? Think just because the hand full of countries that do have them and have not used them automatically equals that every other country in the world won't? It's far too much of a risk.

Answer 8

At the end of the Cold War, the United States had the unique opportunity to show true leadership and use it's power to help make the world a better place. Instead we allowed greedy, self-serving elements to stage a judicial coup to seize power and then attempt through intimidation to try to rule the world. The world don't like that.

Answer 9

Nope. The key part of your question is 'we', meaning the USA. This is why the UN was created. When Bush decided to ignore the UN and invade Iraq he nullified it's entire goal and purpose.

The UN was created after WWII in order for the world (countries as a group) to protect itself against maniacs like Hitler. As soon as we invaded Iraq, I knew the next Cold War would begin. You can't have one country ignoring the UN and using force while trying to impose laws on another country. It just doesn't work.

Excellent question.

Answer 10

It is no different than gun control within a nation, if you disarm the people or countries you can walk all over them with impunity and be their dictator.

No, we do not have the right to say what any other nation can and can't have.

Yes, any country has a right to defend itself from the invasion of hostile forces and they also have the right to ask for and receive help defending their country from any nation or group with enough balls to confront the invading hostile forces.

Answer 11

You don't understand this issue. We're not telling anyone that they can't protect themselves. What we're saying is that they don't have the right to put other countries in jeopardy. If you're referring to the country(ies) I suspect, there are some proclivities there toward invasion of neighboring countries.