US Rationale for owning WMD?

Question

What is the United States official justification for owning WMD when they police nations developing them? This might be a naive question but why is this glaring double standard not highlighted more by nations such as Iran and pakistan?

Answer 1

Probably because with our government, use is a matter of last resort, not the first and most ideal choise. Iran want nuclear weapons to drop on Israel, and, if possible, the United States and Great Britain as well. With the former Soviet Union and current China, we don't like the fact that they have nukes, but we believe they want to convert us, not destroy us, and that those weapons are not intended as first strike options. In countries run by dictators like North Korea and like Saddam was in Iraq before being forced out, WMDs in the hand of lunatics threaten EVERYONES safety. In the case of Iran, the current President is someone associated with the Ebassy hostage crisis who has openly, publicy, called for Israel to be wiped off the map. Do you really think it would be a good thing for him to have access to nuclear weapons?

Answer 2

It is highlighted by many countries but not in the arena of public opinion. The heads of countries discuss such matters and the nature of humans suggest that it is still a good idea to have them. The Cold War may be officially over but many threats to our country abound.

It is our right, and our obligation as a country, to police the world and prevent proliferation. While we are the only country to have actually used them on people, by doing so we are also responsible for letting the cat out of the bag.

Nukes are with us, some country has to police their development. I'd rather it be the United States with it's still steady form of government than a rogue nation with a tyrant in charge.

There will be a double standard, but after weighing everything, it is a healthy compromise to let survival of the fittest work in this matter. It isn't perfect, but it is working.

I am continually amazed at how most Liberals fail to factor in human nature when going about trying to lobby for what ever is on their agenda. The fact that we have nukes keeps other nations on their heels.

Sure, some insane fool who doesn't care for human life can arrange for a few planes to fly into buildings. But it is a testament to the responsible attitude of our country that we didn't indiscriminantly start making craters all over the Middle East.

You need to make sure there is a huge healthy line between your opinion and those of people who are always stating that conspiracies are a dime a dozen. I can respect any Liberal who is willing to listen to an alternate point of view. Anyone short of that is insane.

Answer 3

Well, you have brought up a valid point. The United Nations was developed to do this. It was formed as a way for more developed, democratic nations to work together to guide lesser developed nations into finding peaceful ways of resolving problems rather that resorting to war, killing, and torture of their own citizens and the citizens of neighboring countires.

It was thought that if the U.N. gets involved with warring nations then any one country can't turn around and attack the multi-national U.N. forces that enter to stop the fighting.

However, to the best of my knowledge the U.S. does not have WMDs other than atomic weapons. Unless things have changed, and under Bush they sure could have, the U.S. does not develop stuff like poison gas. That's what Saddam had and developed.

Ideally, the U.N. works works keep WMDs away from everyone. Bush didn't want to work with the U.N. anymore so he got his own coalition of nations together to invade Iraq, telling them the same lies he told us.

Some conservatives actually think the U.N. member nations are a bunch of wimps. They are not crazy about diplomacy---they prefer dropping bombs.

I don't think ANY nation should have WMDs and the nations that do have atomic weapons need to be closely monitored, including us.

Answer 4

This is a good question, and indeed is still an ongoing debate. I suppose there are several reasons we retain our WMD's while insisting others destroy theirs. First and foremost, we view ourselves as a responsible nation...at least when it comes to the use of our WMD's. We haven't used our WMD stockpile since WWII (and uses then could arguably be justified).

I think we also trust ourselves to make good judgements, but cannot trust others (especially rogue nations) to do the same.

Answer 5

A hundred years ago stronger nations took over weaker nations. It wasn't a matter of just cause or anything like that. If you could gain territory you did.

If we were truly evil and power hungry, we would be trying to conquer. Instead we've taken the stance of silent power and fairness.

Countries that want to develop WMD aren't bound by our fairness. When they achieve them it will go back to conquer and kill those who resist. They've shown this in their own countries and to their own people, so why should we hope they won't attack their neighbor?

We've had years and years where we could have attacked. We could own all of the americas, if we'd applied ourselves in the 50s.

We can be trusted because we've shown we can be trusted. Countries like Pakistan, and most middle east countries have shown they can't be trusted.

Answer 6

well, first of all.. we developed the technology.. so we know the in's and out's of it much better than a nation who has had them for a couple of decades. not to mention we have the resources to protect our WMD's.. it would be VERY difficult for someone to steal them or for them to be sold to a rogue organization. nations like Iran and N. Korea have demonstrated that they support these organizations and therefore cannot be trusted to handle such power. secondly, we would NEVER use them again unless ABSOLUTELY necessary. they are mainly a deterrent(?). not an offensive weapon. they're not needed in most situations. we have the most sophisticated armed force in the world.


to the guy above me... tsk tsk.. that's the problem with the world today... too much ignorance. look, saddam USED WMD's on his OWN people for pete's sake! several times! WMD's are other things besides nukes. that wasn't a huge can of Febreeze he sprayed on the Kurds... he demonstrated that he was not capable of being responsible with the technology... you think he wouldn't have nuked the kurds if he had the ability??? or used them on Israel or Iran by then if he had them??? the U.S. does NOT have a problem with nuclear technology being used for RESPONSIBLE uses. killing your own people is NOT responsible.

to the girl BELOW me.. geeez... i'm surrounded!! look, we are the world's LONE superpower left. we have a responsibility to all peaceful nations to keep the world's evils at bay. we have the resources and the military strength to enforce it... like it or not... who do you want that responsibility to go to? France? England? the UN? all have proven to be ineffective...

Answer 7

It's always better to negotiate from a position of superior strength. The only WMDs we currently have in place are the nukes that are deployed as deterrents and are not intended to be used offensively. The US has eliminated chemical and biological weapons from its active inventories and is in the process of destroying what is left from the cold war or before.

Answer 8

America has it in it's head, and has had it in it's head for quite a while, that we are superior to other nations. We think that just because we're richer and some what more powerful, that we are masters of the universe.


But we aren't. We are no better than Iran or Pakistan, North Korea or China. Or any other country at that. How is it right for us to tell them what they have to do, but us not follow the same???

Answer 9

Because the U.S. wants to prevent WMD's from getting into the hands of rogue nations, like Iran, who may use them to terrorize, and not defend.

Answer 10

Not a naive question at all. And, in fact, a question that is discussed frequently in other countries. America exhibits the greatest hypocricy of all time with their posession of WMD and their invasion of another country with the excuse that they held WMD. The justification, of course, is that America is GOOD, and won't use them for harmful, aggressive purposes. But hey, other countries could say the same of themselves, couldn't they? Its the pot calling the kettle black...and the American people are burying their heads in the sand if they think that its okay for their leader to say one thing, and then do something very different. My country right or wrong, huh?