If the U.N is so concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, why has no action been taken against countries already possessing them and not disarming? Is it a sense of timing? Why is it ok for America to own or make nuclear weapons 30, or 50 years old while Korea can't do it today?
Where should we draw the line? Not saying that nucelar weapons or the prospect of nuclear war is good, but sohuld the UN take an equalling active role in nuclear nations as well as those creating weapons?
2006-10-14 08:09:14 · 9 answers · asked by jleslie4585 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Absolutely.
Having a double standard on what you can and cannot have is not justified in any way.
Besides the US is still making bigger, better, more effective nukes, we just dismantle a old one for every new one to maintain the same number of nukes per our treaties.
2006-10-14 08:16:26 · answer #1 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the respond is South Korea and the North Korean protection tension. The South Korean capital of Seoul could be levelled in the 1st days of the warfare, as a results of fact North Korea is armed with the (ordinary, non-nuclear) missiles to do it, and that's only short distance from the border. The North Koreans ought to probably additionally overrun maximum of South Korea in in ordinary terms some days. So, the value of a warfare with the North could only be to intense. this is no longer something like Iraq.
2016-12-08 14:44:45 · answer #2 · answered by hergenroeder 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on what you're trying to achieve?? Think cause and effect. In this instance the UN is trying to exercise a lever to slow nuclear proliferation in N Korea. That won't work with the P5 (US, UK, China etc). In US & UK the lever is different - the vote! In China and Russia it's more complicated.
Any others?
2006-10-14 09:16:53 · answer #3 · answered by gtryder22 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that would make too much sense ... what i am wondering is how the US is going to pull off using tactical nukes on irans nuclear facilities and get away with it ... im sure the media will spin it. yes, the us has basically given itself the greenlight to use tactical nukes in regional theatre warfare in its latest nuclear posture review so how can it be that these other up and coming nations are being condemned for seeing the US as a nuclear "threat" and wanting weapons to defend themselves...
2006-10-14 08:16:27 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Boys with toys. So much hypocrisy. I guess it's a matter of 'responsible' leaders and 'responsible' nations and most political and military clout, judged on past history.
It might be a matter of time where all nations own some form of radioactive weapons of mass destruction and no one would have a trump card over each other.
2006-10-14 08:22:51 · answer #5 · answered by mmmporg 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The UN should place sanctions on existing nuclear nations (or actually nation) who used Depleted Uranium.
2006-10-14 08:12:31 · answer #6 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no there is no need to. i don't believe that nuclear proliferation per se is what concerns the un. i think it is concern about tinpot regimes acquiring nuclear weapon. it's my concern too.
2006-10-14 08:17:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
fair enough but UN only follow USA instructions and all the other major 5 ( china, Russia, France ,UK Germany )
oh don't forget USA `s pit ( Israel)
2006-10-14 08:32:09 · answer #8 · answered by SARAH 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's George W. exercising his spfincter muscle to show his authori-tay.
2006-10-14 08:17:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋