ABT, anti-ballistic missile treaty... that's long range nuclear missiles. Once countries like Iran and N. Korea saw us leave that treaty, they began to immediately think about 'defense' on a nuclear level.
N. Korea immediately stated it's intent to leave the NPT, nuclear non-proliferation treaty which has escalated to where we are now.
Should we consider reversing actions like this in order to prevent another cold war and realize we have spawned other country's desires to have nuclear defensive weapons?
2007-02-13 16:27:10 · 16 answers · asked by BeachBum 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I've always found it fascinating (and not just a little hypocritical) that its okay for the US to own WMD, but not other countries! The argument on this forum (not surprisingly) has always been, "Yeah, but we're the good guys..." ?????
Pulling out of ABT was like an open invitation for others to follow suit...so why is it such a surprise when they do? If other countries had led the retreat, the US would have been quick to follow as well.
I'm not sure how much good a consideration of reversing the action will do any good at this point. Rejoining doesn't guarantee that others will follow the lead. The damage is done. Now the US just has to live with it. Or lie to themselves about their role...as will probably be more the case.
2007-02-14 04:36:14 · answer #1 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
through unlawful bombing, Clinton brought about 911. Bush type of kept the united states. it is how- See, Saddam Hussein needed to promote oil in Euros quite of money. Even the French authorities suggested this may reason monetary disaster. So regardless of the reality Iraq had no longer some thing to do with 911, Bush fabricated "guns of mass destruction" to oust Saddam. we needed a reason to bypass to conflict, and guns of mass destruction grow to be what hit domicile with people. once Saddam grow to be killed, the U. S. nonetheless managed to commerce oil for money. So certain, Bush kept us from monetary disaster through starting up a pretend conflict. wager what? Obama's more beneficial into conflict than Bush. Our authorities's all about u . s . progression.
2016-12-04 03:56:06 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No we shouldn't that treaty was made up along time ago, our nuclear weapons are getting old and need replaced. While I would be for getting rid of all of them its just not feasible. Look at Russia they are all the time trying to build their nukes to out do ours, so I don't think us leaving the ABT has anything to do with north Korea or Iran developing nukes they had to start working on the process long before Bush pulled us out of the ABT they are just now using it as an excuse to build them now.
2007-02-13 17:35:19 · answer #3 · answered by firetdriver_99 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
No, I think that Bush was smart enough to see that the Axis of evil were using that policy against us. And he was right! N. Korea lied to Clinton and the world about their build up which started during Clinton's administration. And all the worlds information on Saddam was that he was trying to get nuclear weapons and this information by the way came from intelligence in the Clinton administration.
And a cold war is much better than a 'hot' one.
2007-02-13 17:16:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
If I'm not mistaken, Kahn was selling uranium enrichment technology to anyone who wanted to pay, before 2001. And they were buying. So I don't think the supposed new arms race can be attributed entirely to Bush's actions.
With that said, I think pulling out of the ABT was a mistake. It served no purpose, except to remove us from the consensus opinion of the other ABT signees. I think that Bush's weakening of the NPT, by approving India's program, was also a mistake.
Basically, I'm all for reversing practically anything and everything that Bush has ever done.
2007-02-13 16:55:31 · answer #5 · answered by Crystal Blue Persuasion 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Actually....no. It's not a good idea, right now especially. There isn't going to be another cold war, at least not on the same level anyway.
Russia is stepping up their nuke program with all brand new nukes, but we are still working with Russia. Ya just can't tell two superpowers to lay down all weapons until you know it's safe to do so.
Besides, there are still too many terror cells in the U.S. and until the government agencies can weed through the bureaucratic red tape to flush the rest of them out, it's just not safe enough yet.
Besides, the US will not bring down project Icarus just to prove a point, just like the Russians will never bring there's back down to earth. That would be a really silly move on both our parts.
2007-02-13 16:34:48 · answer #6 · answered by chole_24 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The issue is not this treaty, we are part of the Nuclear Non-proliferation pact, this is the treaty that has been violated by N. Korea, and Iran.
2007-02-13 16:41:24 · answer #7 · answered by impalersca 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Why would they wait for the "ok" from us? When have they ever followed our lead? Any nation hostile enough to use ballistics on other nations for 'bad' purposes isn't going to sit around and say, "Well, gee, since the US has left, I think I will too!"
But anyways, we have more important treaties to abandon, such as NAFTA.
2007-02-13 16:34:20 · answer #8 · answered by Picard Facepalm 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
It was only the beginning of this evil mans reign of terror, he in the first few month undid every good thing that Bill Clinton had done and by the summer of 2001 had thrown us into a recession and the only way that he could save the economy was to start a war with an oil producing nation. There is an end to his evil in less then two years if he doesn't start what could be W.W. l l l and end life as we know it on the rock we call home.
2007-02-13 16:32:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 7⤋
Do you really think a country like Saddam's Iraq, N Korea, or Iran would really abide by a treaty?? You are naive!
2007-02-13 16:30:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 5⤋