Do you think it is double standards that countries with nuclear arms are condemning North Korea?

Question

Personally I don't like the idea of (another) country having nuclear arms but I find it hypocritical of the US, UK etc to condemn a country for developing weapons that they already possess, and seem to have little intention of getting rid of!

I am aware of the dictatoship in place in North Korea, and of the poverty of it's people. I'm also aware of the potential threat of NK due to the unpredictability of it's bonkers leader.

Could answers folks - you're giving me plenty to think about.

Answer 1

The issue at hand isn't nuclear acquisition by other nations, but rather nuclear proliferation throughout the globe. What the nations such as the US and UK are trying to do is keep the number of countries with (God I hate this phrase, but it's fitting in this case) weapons of mass destruction down. The reason is that we have an understanding that we're not going to use the weapons.
Think about it: The US and UK are nations that have high GDP, high education, and incredible individual wealth as compared to other nations across the globe. We understand that, and we wouldn't do anything to jeopardized that position.
However, as nations such as North Korea (a nation with a highly militant past, coupled with an unpredictable and comparably barbaric nature when it comes to war) acquire nuclear weapons, that uneasy truce goes out the window. Those nations have room to gain position (or at lease perceived room to gain) through the use of force. Today, there is no one who can combat the US on their own with a standard show of force, and the only nations that could really combat the collective European might are in either military or economic alliance with them. That leaves guerrilla tactics and offensives using nontraditional means. Guerrilla tactics are useful when the force knows the area they are occupying (such as guerrilla defense of their homeland), or when they are attempting a single strike against an unsuspecting foe. Originality when it comes to offensives is in short supply, because of advances in patterning and predictive studies. That leaves high yield destruction against key targets as the only available alternative. Read: nuclear and untraditional weapons.

That's why we don't want NK getting nuclear capabilities, and more specifically--launch capabilities. Any government can acquire a nuclear weapon. Seriously. However, launching them and accurately guiding them to a target thousands of miles away requires massive facilities and technological advancement.

I'd be more afraid of launch vehicle development than nuclear development, if I were you.


Evan.

Answer 2

Not really, North Korea really isn't in an economic position to be developing such weapons in the first place with the bulk of it's populous in poverty, it seems NK's head of state is more concerned about having the worlds attention focused on him than protecting his people and by constantly going against the grain of the world community as this isn't just a UK and US thing by the way but something the WHOLE WORLD condemns Kim Jong-il forces the hand international bodies such as the United Nations to further impose economic and aid sanctions against NK which in turn make the existence of those living in NK even more miserable.

But what does Kim Jong-il care? NK isn't a stable country and there is were the problem really is in that NK is more likely to actually use nuclear weapons against it's neighbouring states should Kim Jong-il feel that the country is being threatened or even ignored by the international community.

Answer 3

Yes, it is a double standard. But I think we are witnessing events that are not unlike a child that learns something and while using that info i.e. nuclear weapons, discovers how bad it really is. We used the Atomic bomb in WWII and found it was far beyond we expected in effect. During the Cold War, nuclear proliferation were the words of the day; but, now that worldwide destruction is less of a threat due to nukes since the fall of the Soviet Union, I think those with nuclear weapons would like to see them eradicated all together because of the Pandora's box that gets opened if and when nukes are used. In the hands of Iran or the North Koreans, nukes propose a new threat again; combined with megalomaniac type dictators, rogue states and the possibility that terrorist organizations could and WOULD use those devices on U.S. soil adds a new dimension to the danger. I don't think it would be wise to eradicate our nukes as long as countries such as these keep building them and want to use them to destroy the American way of life.
Have a great and nuke free day!!! lol

Answer 4

the concern with N. Korea and Iran is that their management is very pathological. they are extra probably to "use" the weapons against their "enemies" - actual or imagined than any of the different international places who've those weapons. The question of in spite of if George Bush is the main threatening guy interior the international is a perception without substance. besides after 4 or 8 years, the President is the two defeated in an election or term-constrained out to get replaced by using somebody else (and, extra suitable than probably from a diverse social gathering*). it isn't the case in the two N. Korea or Iran. * by way of fact the top of WW II: Truman (D) 1945 - after FDR's dying to 1952 Eisenhower (R) 1953-1960 Kennedy/LBJ (D) 1961 - 1968 Nixon/Ford (R) 1969 - 1976 Carter (D) 1977 - 1980 Reagen (R) 1981 - 1988 Bush (R) 1989 - 1992 Clinton (D) 1993 - 2000 Bush (R) 2001 - 2008 - term limits in spite of if he could win or not is moot. He won't be able to run lower back.

Answer 5

Well my take on the whole issue is North Koreas Kim IL Jong doesnt give a rats azz about what any other country thinks he is a crazed dictator and will do whatever he wants because he probably thinks no one is going to stop him and I mean really! who is going to stop him? Certainly not the U.S they have enough problems to worry about being the world police. The U.N defintely isnt going to a damn thing about it. I dont like the idea either of another country having nuclear weapons but there is nothing anybody can do about it.

Answer 6

Absolutely....

Because we are part of the Western World we do become a little bit brainwashed I think to the apparent fact that the USA and supporting countries are always right.......in conjunction with the U.N. in many cases of course.

It is apparently fine for the USA to do whatever they want....as they are right in all matters and have the right to impose their views on everyone else....to the extent that invasion, and even overthrowing ruling regimes is perfectly acceptable....

If you think about if from afar it is amazing that people have accepted that this type of behaviour is fine....albeit most of us would agree with some of the actions taken....but it is the divine right it seems to do them without question that is bewildering....eg the War in Iraq. Whilst the UK hid behind the need for a second U.N. resolution, which of course never came, the USA made it plain that they would act on their own if they had to without such a resolution. So whilst seeking support for their actions they were going to take them anyway....

The USA has become too big and powerful....scary really considering the intellectual shortfall many of the population has.......

Answer 7

Don't you know anything about North Korea? Don't you know that Kim Jong Il is a freako and that the country has been going through famines and chaos? You are not talking about a responsable country like Spain, Argentina or Singapore. You are talking about a weird, suicidal, totaliarian, hyped out place.

To put it another way - I can with someone that has had a back ground check and a clean record having a gun permit. I can't abide by having someone like Charles Mansen or Ted Bundy being allowed to own a gun.

Answer 8

Not really because both the US and UK stopped testing nuclear weapons some time ago when it was clear that vast damage was being done to the environment. They can't stop N.Korea or anyone else possessing them but they can whinge a bit when testing is done without a care in the world. Hell,even the French like to let one off every now and then!

Answer 9

Yes, it's a double standard. But the nuclear stand-off is what's kept us safe for 60 years, and allows you the freedom od speech to write your opinions here. If the Nazis or the Reds had dominated the world in the 50's or 60's none of us would enjoy those freedoms.
North Korea is a rogue state who cares little for its own people - they would rather build atom bombs and see their poor starve.
What does that say about them?
Would you give a madman a sawn-off shotgun and turn him loose in a street?
Would you want the police to be armed to stop him?
I would.
The major powers ARE he world's policemen whether we like it or not, and they have earned that right through two world wars of sacrifice. Ask my dad or grandad - if they were still here...

Answer 10

It is hypocritical. If I had my country, I would want nuclear weapons too. Why should you have the 'greatest' power to destroy me or bend me to your will and there's nothing I can do about it? Either we are all nuclear-free or we work on exceptional diplomacy. Time to send the leaders to etiquette and charm school.