Should America always impose itself globally?

Question

Take for instance nuclear...we are the only country who have used it in agression..not saying it was wrong or right...but what right do we have to say what other countries can and can't do or have?

Answer 1

Might makes right.

Its simplistic, but I dare you to prove me wrong. I'll just beat you up.

Answer 2

As far as nuclear weapons go, the world community has pretty much agreed that they're a bad thing. Obviously some countries still want nuclear weapons, and the question really should be "why?" The UN really doesn't want rogue nations building nuclear weapons. The US is obviously the most vocal nation on the matter which both helps and hurts us. Yes, I think we should take a stand on nuclear weapons but we should also be honest about our nuclear ambitions.

As far as being the world's peacekeeper goes, I do not think we need to act in that capacity. We don't need to be the world's police. We should not be relied upon to answer ever civil squabble in the world. We shouldn't be sent as the bulk of UN "peacekeeping" forces. We shouldn't be involved in "nation-building" and we most certainly should not be "spreading Democracy."

Answer 3

No we take care of business here other peoples should take care of business in their own lands. I don't feel it is our job to go around creating puppet governments and undermining the balance of power nuclear weapons involved or not within other regions of the world. Mediating fine, but we ought to worry about our own issues before those of other countries around the world. There is nuclear Non-proliferation treaty, but it isn't binding since a nation can withdraw from a treaty at any time. There is also a civilian use for nuclear energy obviously which further complicates the issue. Also if one country in a region has nuclear weapons their enemies within the region have a great incentive to acquire the like or be left open to attack and in a weaker bargaining position.

Answer 4

Here is where you are off a bit.... we did not use it in aggression. We used it in defense and as a means to an end. We were attacked, remember. You will also notice that Japan is now a very good friend of the USA. There are other countries that have this technology. We do not dictate who can or can not have it. The UN, as a "global society" does "police" the world and with good reason. There are those in this world who have made it clear, that if they obtained this technology that they would use it in aggression. You don't give someone a weapon when they clearly state those intentions.

Answer 5

I suppose you could call it aggression, it was kind of a last resort thing, but yeah. What right? A nuclear right? I don't think America always imposes her will. Considering how powerful America is, it rather sparingly imposes her will, and when she does so, it is well noted.

Answer 6

I think its because we "discovered" it in the useable sense. (The Nazis were working on it first I think). We know how dangerous this can be and since we have interests all over the world we dont want a country with poor secruity to have it (if terrorists get a hold of a dirty bomb it would be bad). If your referring to our involvement with Iran, I think we have a right. Besides why does Iran need it, they are practically floating on oil.

Answer 7

We cant.We just have to mind our own business or else SOME greedy presidents would take this opportunity to steal more oil and we dont want that happening.
Buffelo Most of the americans think the same way, excpt for neo cons and Bush

Answer 8

No...our moral compass is somewhat off kilter, these days.
religion-political punditry is at an all time high. moral interpreters to manipulate the values of the populace.

Answer 9

Sure we should... If the goal is to end up flat broke and lose what little creditability we have left as a nation.

Answer 10

you are right