How can the US honestly limit the use of nuclear weapons when it has more than any other country in the world?

Question

Is there not a supreme irony in this? Shouldn't we lead by example?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg

How can people think for a moment that our weapons are somehow different in INTENT than those of use by others? Weapons are weapons. The only intent of a weapon is to kill. A weapon's purpose cannot be obfuscated by propaganda or self-righteousness. It is very hypocritical of us to criticize the use of nuclear energy and/or nuclear weapons by other countries. We are not somehow morally supreme or the appropriate caretakers of this resource - anymore so than any other country.

Answer 1

Also notice the chart the USA had the nukes before Russia on a masive scale and was telling the usa citizens that they were trying to catch up to the Soviets, a total lie, the cold war was totally instigated by the US military industrial complex. a few good books are coming out now about it. when the soviets only had four nukes on standby in the 1950s the American citizens were told that they had 100 nukes targeted at our cities, we were also not told that they offered disarmament in the 70s and early 80s. it was wthheld from us. the book- The Waste of the Worlds wealth, a great book by a conservative writer that points out the waste of government including militarism.

Answer 2

First of all, check your graph again. That graph clearly shows that Russia has more nuclear weapons than the US.

Secondly, in the early 1960's, the NPT (Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty) was adopted. It recognized 5 nuclear weapons states (US, USSR, UK, France, China) and cast everyone else in the world as a non nuclear weapon state. Under the terms of the treaty, the NWS promised to disarm and the NNWS promised not to seek weapons. It's the mostly widely agreed to treaty in history, with almost 190 signatories, and in the 90's, the signatories met and decided to make it a permanent treaty. The signatories, not the US - while the US definitely plays a major role in the treaty, it's not a US undertaking, it's an international one.

Finally, we are leading by example, by not using our nukes and reinforcing the idea that to do so would be awful, and by slowing reducing our arsenal, as we promised to do under the NPT.

Answer 3

I disagree with your assumption that "The only intent of a weapon is to kill." Not true. Sometimes, the purpose of a weapon is to THREATEN, not use for killing.

Example: I own a .22 semi-automatic pistol and would most assuredly aim it at an intruder. My intent is NOT to use it, but to cause the intruder to either get the heck out of my house or lie down on the floor while I call 911.

The US can argue that having more nuclear weapons than any other country is a deterrent against another country or group using theirs against us. I think it is a decent argument.

Answer 4

Yes, but there is the plurality question. Right now, the example seems to be "don't use nuclear weapons" because the majority are not definable.

I haven't researched this, and even if we were to assume that we knew these hypothetical countries, but for sake of argument, let's say that

US has 38%
Country B has 10%
Country C has 8%
Country D has 9%
Country E has 7 %
other remaining countries have 28%

So what-- isn't the negotiation more about who are countries BCDE and remaining? Are they in allegiance to one another?

The other thing is that even if US has a great majority (70% plus), is the possible detriment to our country so insurmountable that any one country with nuclear weapons is a threat to our way of living?

The cost is compounded with environmentalism is factored in; a hit in a water or river plain disturbs effects for hundreds of miles.

Answer 5

Your own link proved you wrong.

Your own link, shows that Russia has had more nuclear weapons than the US, for over 40 years.

Plus, you forget the fact that the Russians and the US signed a treaty in 2002,

To dismantle most of thier nuclear weapons and limit both sides to just 2,200 weapons each.

Answer 6

There is a differece, we need nuclear deturrants because we are most at threat. There are plenty of countries that, if they had a nuclear weapon, would gladly use it against the United States out her allies. The President of Iran wants to "wipe Isreal off the face of the earth" and does not believe the the Holocaust ever happened. You just don't give people like that a nuke.

And Russian has a couple of more nukes then us.

Answer 7

Simple, get rid off all but our low yield tactical devices (only usable ones anyways) And make a device that can take our massed ICBMs effectively, or a space based weapon that negates MAD's effects by being able to hit any target on the world without being hit its self. Force people to the Negotiation table.

Answer 8

Please research the following items. The links will be in the sources.

1. Strategic Arms Limitation Talks
2. Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
3. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

These explain how the United States is involved in it's own state of sequential disarmament and non-proliferation of hostile nuclear technology.

We are trying to set the example in the world to prevent another nuclear standoff (Cold War) or los of life by atomic detonation (Hiroshima/Nagasaki).

Answer 9

Perhaps the police force should lead by example as well by eliminating its weapons. Criminals would surely follow suit and crime would go down. See, the logic doesn't work.

There's no irony in wanting to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of others who will use them against us or our friends.

Answer 10

The United States of America will never limit the the use or the amount of WMD it has.We"us Americans "are the big elephant in the room,we need all the arms we can build,cause if we give up the largest we will be an easy target.thats what the North korea's of the world are waiting for.

Answer 11

You don't pay much attention do you?... do some research and then tell me exactly how many times sence 1945 we have used nuclear weapons.... That would seem to be leading by example to me. But clearly not to you... then again I love and respect the country of my birth.