I don't understand why the United States possesses the largest nuclear arsenal on the globe yet continues to condemn other nations developing the same technology. If in fact such weapons as designed and stockpiled by the United States are for defensive purposes only why does it seem we have such a problem with another country that might want to develop such weapons for the same reason?

Considering the United States is the only country to have used nuclear weapons and considering the United States appears to mobilize it's military without global support on occasion are other countries right to fear that they too may be invaded and occupied?

So the question to debate is :

Should other countries be allowed to develop nuclear weapons to serve as a deterrent to superpowers not unlike the United States or should they continue to be prohibited from doing so with the threat of force looming over their heads for violating such mandates?

I am not one to promote nuke creation, anywhere, for us or anyone else. but i would much rather be the only country with the gun in a knife fight, then allow anyone to have a gun.
no its not fair, its not nice, but i don't feel to comfortable with people we do not like my way of life possessing nukes or bio/chem WMD's, because extremists who hate capitalist democracies have shown that they will attack us with any means neccesary. and call me selfish, but i would rather it not be a hydrogen bomb.

and i think about the welfare of my family first, then my state, then my country, and then my allies, and finally, anyone else. no other country will take priority over my own. and if that means keeping everyone else from having guns, because we are afraid they will shoot us or our allies, so be it.

No i am not sure that this is the best plan, but its not a bad precaution.

so have at me...



Quane

I fully understand your fear of extremists but what I think we fail to understand at times is that we are viewed as extremists by the countries we consider threats. I would also add that our conduct on occasion certainly lends itself to such a label....especially of late.

We will continue to be looked upon as the country that forces it's will on others when the spirit moves us to do so while at the same time refusing others the right and subsequently the ability to defend against arbitrary and/or unilateral military action should it occur.

It is my opinion that it is the sovereign right of any country to develop defenses of their choosing without threat of force hanging over their heads for doing so.

Its hard for me to comment, as I believe that all catastrophic and enviromentally harmful weapons (nuclear, chemical, biological) should be banned all over the world. But then, I also realise that we are unfortunate in being humans, a twisted and insecure species thats lust for individual power excedes its compassion for fellow humans and respect for the planet.

I seem to remember Gorbachov (prob bad sp) offering at least to the US to totally do away with all their collective nukes and make the world a happier place. Wow! now what Russia had some 30,000 I believe, and the US 25,000 or so? Nearly 60,000 inhumane weapons suddenly wiped off the sheet! Wouldnt that have been nice!

Well we'll never know, as he died before he got an answer (as far as Im aware, maybe US rejected Im not sure). Maybe it would have been paradise. Maybe other nations would develop weapons and nuke the heck out of Russia and America, and then where would we be? Or maybe pusing for total nuclear/chemical/biological disarment would have been possible if the big two suddenly were against it.

However, I have no fear of nuclear or chemical or biological war. Well not for me, I live in a US allied nation! Cant guess what its like in places not so friendly with the US. And it would be slightly worrying if there was a big red button in the white house, as well all know how toddlers like to push buttons.

Actually I just read recently that Yellowston is actually the worlds biggest volcano - the whole thing is sitting on a massive pile of magma that erupts every 600,000 years or so. The last time it erupted was 630,000 years ago. If (when) it pops, we'll not have to worry about nukes anymore. For a start most of the nukes in the world will be buried under 8 meters of ash

Gorbachev isn't dead. He is now the president of a humanitarian foundation (Green Cross International). As far as I know he never made that suggestion, either. The Soviets were actually much better poised to 'win' a nuclear war than we. They invested a lot of time and money in underground tunnels to protect the elite. Scary stuff. Even if he had offered to disarm, that wouldn't have effected China, which is very nuclear capable.

At any rate, there are far too many nukes in the world. I think everyone has a vested interest in making sure that unstable governments and violent dictatorships have as few as possible.

I really don't think any country should be pursuing WMD's, but that includes us as well. The international community has a duty to prevent proliferation of these weapons, but we can't be hypocrites and push for developing "mini-nukes" as the Bush administration, or not destroy our stockpiles and stockpiles of nukes and chemical/biological weapons. I'm not saying we should eliminate everything...it's good to have a few detterents, but how can anyone argue the need for 25,000 nuclear wepaons? Aside from the Gorbachev plan, there was also the SALT II or III agreement which would have drastically reduced our's and Russia's arsenal. I believe, but am not certain, it was also Bush that ended this treaty.

No, I don't think it's very reasonable, but I think it is pretty practical. I'm all for nuclear non-proliferation, and indeed I think that the countries with large nuclear arsenals should be winding them down, as far as possible, and not ramping them up.

I think the old doctrine of M.A.D. had great value, but it has been undermined by the keenness of some extremist non-state groups to acquire WMDs. It has also been undermined, though, by the American wish to develop systems that prevent them from ever being at risk of MAD.

Tenuously linked, I heard a good gag on the radio - the amount of biological weapons found to date in Iraq are in such small quantities that they could just as easily be used as botox injections for the flattering of Saddam's (huge) vanity as for any kind of weapon. Botox is an extremely potent bacterial neurotoxin, after all, and in all Saddam's creepy media appearances, I never saw many wrinkles, nor much in the way of animated facial expression, so who knows? Maybe the idea is more than just a gag.

The US is a hypocrite, what do you expect? On the one hand, we demand that everyone else disarm right this second, but on the other, we put off our legal promises to disarm chemical and biological weapons as long as we can because we're the big dog on the block.

Absolutely hypocritical.

Hypocritical my butt. The United States has used WMD only once in WWII. We keep ours as a defense if necessary. The reason we tell other nations they can't have them is because they are dictorial. Why let a country like North Korea, with it's unstable communist nut & Iran's crazy Theocratic Regime have WMD?

The United States has also been reducing it's WMD armaments. Getting rid of our nukes along with Russia and getting rid of our chemical weapons.

The perception that the U.S. holds some kind of moral high ground in this regard is ludicrous imo.

I think the arbitrary dismissal of the sovereign rights of other nations to build defense systems based on the notion and/or fact that they are dictatorships or crazy Islamics can easily be classified as the root of the foreign policy nightmare we now find ourselves in.

We are not the self-appointed judge, jury, and executioner of all that might oppose our way of government and until we realize as much I suspect terrorism in all of it's various forms will continue to flourish and target the United States.

How convenient that our stockpile of WMDs is classified as defensive in nature while anyone else trying to build such weapons is classified as a member of the axis of evil.

I agree with Cephus in that such policy reflects a level of hypocrisy unlike no other. I would also say that expecting all countries to implement a government like ours is no different than former communist superpowers attempting to spread their ideology through the use of military operations.

It is in fact, extremely hypocritical, but also extremely pragmatic. Violent unstable dictatorships with nukes make a deadly combination for the entire world. I would like to see an end to the nuclear proliferation entirely, but how to do that? Allowing such weapons to get into the hands of radically religious dictatorships or unstable governments is not a step in the direction towards a more peaceful planet.

Edited to add to Cephus: When, exactly, have we used chemical or biological weapons because we're the 'big dog'?

Oh I see no reason for Iran, Libya, Somalia, not to have Nukes. I think it's horrible that Iraq didn't get to finish theirs. Hey Hamas and Al Qaeda and North Korea should have a nuke too considering Israel and the US have them. What's the difference?

Nukes for everyone.

Hamas and Al Qa-eda are not sovereign nations like the countries that are classified from a U.S. perspective as unworthy of developing WMDs. It seems rather clear to me that the United States doesn't want anyone else to have the very weapons they themselves have in great quantities because they would lose the tactical advantage over any country that they might choose to engage if we choose to appoint them the enemy of the month.

I know right about now if I were any country except the United States I would be actively seeking ways to defend myself from any potential aggression that might come my way.

I also don't think such a mindset could be classified as paranoid thinking as recent actions by the United States indicate a real and potential threat exists in this regard.

I often wonder how we would react to a conventional ground invasion of the continental United States. I suspect whatever country started such an invasion would see incoming I.C.B.M. launched in their direction in great quantities.

So what is the difference?

An excellent question.

I'm with you Young.

What's the difference between the US govt and the Somali, Iranian, pre-war Iraqi, North Korea, Libyan govt's anyway? nothing.

We could argue that Hamas really runs Palestine (sovereign country or not) just as Al Qaeda and the Taliban ran afghanistan. They should also have had nukes as well.

Because there IS no difference, right? right.

I've not seen any of the countries you mention above engaging in military operations on foreign soil so that's one major difference that we might discuss.

Looking at the hypocritical U.S. policy on WMDs as exhibited by the invasion/occupation of Iraq certainly demonstrates to the world that an imminent threat does exist.....and we're it.

Well first lets remember that our invasion of Iraq was in large part do to their refusal to disarm per the UN resolutions that they signed after attacking a neighbor. This was not a spur of the moment decision. They had 12 years to comply and as you know they did not.

As far as other countries are concerned we make judgments on each based on the perceived threat to ourselves and allies? Why is this hypocritical?

We also don’t prohibit countries from going nuclear we simply implement sanctions if they do. So if the nutcase in No. Korea wants nukes – fine he looses our aid.

Exactly.

See...we can own guns in america right...

but the felons who have already shot, stabbed and beaten people can't.

----

We can own WMD's

But countires who have attacked, tortured, gassed, and raped their own and other countires can't...


it blatantly makes sense.

Having great difficulty thinking of a single country which hasn't attacked, tortured, gassed, and raped their own and other countries.

H bombs for Switzerland! - -I think

We use clusterbombs and uranium depleted rounds that are both outlawed by Human Rights Watch. I'm not sure if they are also banned by the U.N. or other organizations but i believe so. The uranium has certainly caused severe radiation issues, pollution, and gotten many people (including American soldiers) sick. the clusterbombs have killed many innocent civilians. Some kids were killed by one that failed to detonate on contact not too long ago.

That is clearly not on the level of nuking or gassing people...
...then again we did give the WMD's to Saddam with the express purpose of using them on Iran. So we are guilty by proxy on that one.

In our legal system, if you willingly suppply an individual with an item knowing its intended purpose is for the murder of another then you are an accomplice...
...it was justified because we didn't really like the Ayatollah.


my $.02

Good Point La Herring Rouge.

If we fear tyrannical governments having WMD we are basically assuming the are going to do something bad with them - a totally legitimate and understandable assumption. However using the same logic the US particularly has used weapons in a similar vein - not caring (or so it would seem so) one bit for the indeginous people of a given country. Cambodia and Laos are quite literally full of un-exploded cluster bombs, killing innocent people and preventing internal growth and prosperity. Even in Iraq the British and American used some cluster bombs and given the ease of victory, it disgusts me.

To put yourself in the eyes of a easterner of some description it would seem unfair that America and the West can have WMD but they cannot.

If people saw our poltical system, and thought that it was the most legimate and stable form of governing they wouldnt have any problem with WMD as they would presume we would use them in a safe way. However if you are a fundamentalist, democracy is something evil and WMD are the hand of the devil, another way to fulfill their infidel dream.

This said, I would simply argue that the Fundamentalists are wrong. Democracy if anything is the only legimate forms of governing. But we as democratic citezins must try out upmost to prevent the govt using WMD in a way direspectful to innocent people of the world, and this involves opposing the use of crude weapons such as cluster bombs. Because if we allow this the government will try and sink its hands deeper in its pocket, searching for more dirty tricks.

Evidence that we gave WMD's to Iraq with the express purpose of using them on Iran please? It is my understanding the we never gave (sold) them WMD's period. US companies may have sold them materials that they themselves used to build the weapons, but as far as us selling them fully functional WMD's is false.

Well during the cold war we gave a lot of countries arms and the means to make weapons but we did not tell them it was ok to attack their own citizens. We never gave Iraq WMD. The anthrax strain they used was developed here but was available on the world market and not usable as a weapon without “weaponizing” which Iraq later did.


We have used WMD in war and for good reasons but we have never instigated a war and never will.

What is 'instigating' a war?

I would say that the country which declared war had instigated it.

Every country that has ever fought a war in history has blamed the other side for causing it. So if by instigating a war you mean 'they made us declare war on them' then you're using the same excuse as any country which has ever declared war.

I think that the majority of US wars were fought with fairly good intentions - democracies only fight wars when it is really necessary. Because of this, they can be trusted more than non-democratic countries to possess WMDs.

The Iraq war was directly instigated by the US(note I am not passing judgement on the legitimacy of the war). Iraq did nothing directly agressive toward the US to warrant an invasion.

They are also not going in to save the Iraq people, because if they had genuine humanitarian concerns they would surely solve the problem in the Congo, where 10 million people have died since 1990? Or many of the other nations in Africa for that matter.

The war therefore was instigated by the US alone.

Just ONE more incident where the U.S. instigated a war was the Gulf of Tonkin incident in Vietnam...
In interviews years later the captain of that ship said there was no attack at all. I didn't bother looking for that interview to be honest....


Oh wait, I just thought of another case where the US instigated a war...

The Revolutionary War!! We started that fight because we didn't want to pay taxes that were lower than those paid by the British back home. "No Taxation without Representation!" was also a lie. No one was directly represented in Parliament at the time. Representatives weren't decided by area but by political status. The people in mainland Britain had as little choice over who represented them as did the colonies. Some wealthy people manufactured the "Brotherhood of the Revolution" as a ruse to get colonists into the idea of seccession. I'm not saying I am not glad they did this by any means, but I think it set a precedent for today....

On October 27, 1992, the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs held hearings that revealed that the United States had exported chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile-system equipment to Iraq that was converted to military use in Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons program. Many of these weapons -- weapons that the U.S. and other countries provided critical materials for -- were used against us during the war. (1st Gulf)

On February 9, 1994, Chairman Donald W. Riegle, Jr. disclosed on the U.S. Senate floor that the U.S. government actually licensed the export of deadly microorganisms to Iraq. It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program.

http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/chembio.html

Ted, on Dec 23 1983, during the Iraq/Iran war, when we didnt want Iran to win, however Iraq was losing and nearly broke, Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam Hussein publicly and historically, and then we began shipping him stuff, and making him loans. Now what do YOU think OUR GOVERNEMNT did it for? Lets not be intentionally blind.



Im not sure the Japanese people would agree with that statement. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not military but civilian targets. This does not make us 'more' trustable by any means.

I dont agree that democracies fight wars only when necessary, since Vietnam and Iraq are in question, just to start.



Please explain to me a 'safe' way to use WMD?

I think the US stance is hypocritical, but nuclear proliferation has to be closely monitored for the sake of the entire planet. Im not sure how to go about allowing nations to advance by using nuclear powered energy plants and monitor that they are not making bombs. I also dont like the idea that the US could start wars on nations like Iran for trying to use nuclear energy. I think the US is pretty dangerous these days, WMD or not.

Just for you P Doran:

Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

Samuel Adams: "Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide."

James Madison: "... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

W. H. Seward: "Democracies are prone to war, and war consumes them."

Democracy, 1927, The U. S. Army Training Manual: “A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic, negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.”

Democracy and Mobocracy are synonyms for a form of government in which the majority (mob) rules, and which by definition, guarantees the absence of minority rights.

http://www.indixie.com/indixie/Articles/Republic.htm

Just a note: The US was meant to be a Republic with a Republican form of government.
Republic -A system of government in which both the people and their rulers are subject to law. A government of laws and not of men.

"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy." - Alexander Hamilton

Scots Historian Professor Alexander Tyler circa 1787 re the fall of the Athenian Republic:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

Actually as has been posted elsewhere the anthrax Iraq got from the US and elsewhere no doubt is worthless as a bio weapon. To use anthrax as a weapon it must be weaponized and we NEVER helped Iraq do that.


Dual use products have always been a problem. Products like the aluminum tubes that were a flap recently. It is impossible to stop countries bent on procuring chemical and biological pre agents. If the countries have the technicians and the (dual use) equipment they can manufacture whatever they want.


As far as the war with Japan the bombs dropped were on cities where heavy manufacturing was taking place as it is today in these cities. The alternative to the bombs would have been another 50,000 + American lives AND the number of Japanese casualties would have been even higher.


Our big mistake in 1951 was not using them again against the hoard of Chinese that swarmed over our troops in North Korea. Instead we sacrificed the lives of 33,000 Americans and condemned millions to death and dictatorship to this day in N. Korea.

Just a small note: Russia actually have more Nuclear Weapons then United States.

And its pointless to talk about "why US dont want any other nation to have WMD", because Americans in general (dont take it wrong now boys) get very hostile if anyone thats not american says anything negtive about the country.

And at the same time americans are one of the most ignorant "breed" in the "civilized" world. And dont really want to learn anything about anyone else.
Their Cars, Houses, and yellow rubber ducks are more importent.
Not True you say ?

I think that the US is hypocritical about its nuclear weapons policy. It now uses it as an excuse to wage wars on their enemies before these countries can sufficiently retaliate. I understand why we have nuclear weapons, but why do we selectively target countries when it comes to them having WMD. Israel has violated more UN resolutions than any other country on the planet and we turn a blind eye to their WMD, and maybe supplied them.
I'm all for preventing the proliferation of these WMDs by any country. I think the only way to do so though is the missile defense shield though, but this would only protect us from ICBMs.

No, we actually used them twice. In Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

And as an offensive action, outside our own borders, we targeted civilians.

Just because "it was only once or twice", doesn't make it ok. Hundreds of thousands of innocent lives were lost. And 60 years later, we're still killing them because of our supposed "righteousness".

I've seen this statement repeated here and elsewhere. EVERYTHING I've read, including investigations through Truman's own writings at the time, indicate that he was very adamant that the target of the atomic bombing be MILITARY targets. The civilians who lived around the military installations we bombed worked at the installations, making them more than just mere civilians.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Look, we were firebombing Tokyo hourly at the same time, killing thousands and thousands and slowly decimating that city. And yet we chose a military installation for the atomic bomb. Any reason you can see? Could it be because we were trying to avoid casualties of people not related to their war efforts?

Trumans own diaries say that he was going to order the bombs to be droped on military targets, however the official order says nothing about military targets:

The written order for the use of the atomic bomb against Japanese cities was drafted by General Groves. President Truman and Secretary of War Stimson approved the order at Potsdam.

The order made no mention of targetting military objectives or sparing civilians. The cities themselves were the targets. The order was also open-ended. "Additional bombs" could be dropped "as soon as made ready by the project staff."

http://www.dannen.com/decision/handy.html

Truman calls Hiroshima a military base in his speech on August 9, 1945.

"Truman had said, “The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar was possible, the killing of civilians.”

It was a preposterous statement. Those 100,000 killed in Hiroshima were almost all civilians. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey said in its official report:

“Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population.”

http://free.freespeech.org/americanstatete...maNagasaki.html

'Many people have asked how it came to be that whole civilian populations could become the proper object of direct and purposeful military action. That is, the target at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was principally the civilian population itself.14 There was no "militarily" significant target to speak of beyond that, although Hiroshima did support an army headquarters.'
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchro.../apj/capio.html

I haven't much followed this thread but I would like to point out (as I haven't seen anyone else do it yet, but I might have just missed it) that the United States is not like the other countries that we are trying to keep from having WMD.

We have stringent security policies set up by the military, we have checks on those by civilian authority and we allow inspections by the UN on our weapons themselves and our security measures.

This is key in the issue at the heart of debate because our reasoning for not wanting these smaller countries to have WMD is that they could be hijacked by terrorists. Most countries don't have the incredible infrastructure that the United States has, nor the military power to enforce their own regulation half the time. Or heaven forbid, a country is overtaken by rebels or a president is over thrown (look at Pakistan right now) this could spell serious trouble for the world community.

As for any discussion on the use of nuclear weapons in WW2 I think we were more than justified. I certainly don't hear anyone here talking about the atrocities that the Japanese committed in Nanking http://www.tribo.org/nanking/ . In lew of what we saw over there I think it was very smart to stave off having to battle actual Japanese soldiers who were still abiding a sort of Samurai code (having just come out of that time period the culture was still resonating) with dedication to the Emporer, our boys couldn't have hoped to win that battle without sustaining massive casualties.

I can't believe I find myself agreeing with JL!

Regardless of the debate over hypocrisy over us having WMD vs, oh, North Korea or Iran, I believe our checks and balances are mostly in check safety wise. I was a little worried with Reagan, but with James Baker in charge, I don't think he would be accidently launching missiles.

To me, the real hypocrisy in our position actually lies with our allowing of Isreal WMDs, we should be absolutely instituting sanctions, searches etc on them IMMEDIATELY, that is one out of control country to be having those things!

In an ideal world, we would all recognise the danger of WMDs and no-one would have them. However, in the absence of an effective way of preventing WMDs (and incidentally hope the NMD system works out well for you lot - an effective anti-nuke device is a great idea..I only with the UK could afford one )....and given that we (i.e Western Europe and the US) don't use our WMDs to threaten others, or (unlike Saddam), use them to win wars we started, I think there is a good argument for the US, the UK, France et al to have nuclear weapons as an effective deterrent.

We have WMDs but we know how devastating they can be and we do not misuse them. Whilst I disagree with the policies of the current Israeli administration, I think that it is justified in having nuclear weapons, because many of the Arabic nations surrounding Israel have made it clear that they would like nothing more than to destroy the state. Whilst I may not like Sharon, I believe that Israel has a right to co-exist peacefully with its neighbours and without a WMD deterrent its very existence could be threatened.

It is sad that we need WMD deterrents, but unless everyone in the world is willing to surrender them, we need 'em.

Is anyone suggesting that after 911 that we should now be the "holier than thou" and the leading example of getting rid of our WMD and "trusting" the word of dictators in countries advocating terror and harboring terrorists that they will get rid of their WMD stockpiles too?

Why are we and our allies on the hunt for WMD and strongly and aggressively advising our foes to get rid of their WMD stockpiles? There is nothing more the terrorists (homegrown and global) would like to get their hands on and are willing to pay vast sums of money for. Bio/chemical weapons is their dream in order to fulfill their ultimate goal in mass murder. Remember a few years ago, the hundreds of people that were snuffed out on subways in Japan? Remember the anthrax episode a couple of years ago and we still don't know who is responsible? Suicide bombers, planes flying into buildings killing thousands...all child's play compared to the devastation that can be caused by just a few terrorists depositing lethal chemicals in our cities' public places. IMHO...the heck with being fair or polite when dealing with hostile leaders and countries. Remember, on top of being supreme liars, they have the worst manners of all-they don't ask permission or wire an announcement before they strike.

I think the global business community should be allowed to show the benefits of participating in free and safe environment. Let free enterprise be the reply and incentive to disarmament.

The banning of wmd will be against fought peoples' insecurities. Putting the country on elevated alert over the x-mas holidays isn't achieving this goal. You could cut and paste word for word DR's post into that of an Ariel Sharon speech. Speaking of Israel, they seem to be a focal point of distress for all the arab countries, but this is an obvious comment. If one is so afraid of becoming a target one must ask what heinous deed was done to warrant this attention.

The problem with any form of disarmament is that if it is not followed completely by all involved, peace can never be fully achieved. So when demands are made to sanction a Syria or Iran, by implication one should include Israel as well. At this point Sharon will give us his "persecuted" speech. If he wants his neighbours to abide by some shared ethic, he should consider playing by it as well. So to reiterate, placing demands on other nations while ignoring those same demands yourself will fall on deaf ears. A simple concept but with poor follow through, Mr. Wolfowitz are you listening?

When a nation does this, http://www.antiwar.com/ips/deen2.html put the skepticism on the bench and don't do this. http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/latimes-syria-link.html
And if this occurs http://sg.news.yahoo.com/031230/1/3gygb.html I would approach with caution but at least I would listen.

The watchword here is allegations. See a pattern forming here, especially over the last year??

In my opinon a lot of the posters here have a very dangerous mindset. Are you honestly willing to trust Nukes to anyone that can develope them?
The U.S. policy of MAD actually resulted in a more peaceful world than it would have been or would be without it. Try to imagine a world where the United States had no nukes and all wars were fought conventionally. There would have already been world war three as the Soviet Union would have had no reason to refrain from its expansionist aims and the U.S. no choice but to stop them.
This would have meant massive military buildups the like of which the world has never seen. China would also have been a world power also with expansionist aims. In order to respond to the threats involved the United States would have had to build a military juggernaut.
The insistance on controlling WMD by the U.S. is in order to protect itself to be sure but also to keep the world as safe and peacful as possible. That is in our interest also dont forget.
For those who obviously would like it to be otherwise, history has shown that the United States has the will the resources and the technology to be the most powerful nation on the earth and to remain so. It would have been and will be even if there had never been nukes. However without the threat of American WMDs' keeping its enemies in check, history and yes the future would have and would be much bloodier.

I think that its actually impossible to keep technology from people indefinitely.....



I can understand the argument in favour of the US owning nukes for self defence & keeping the peace - but then, i don't think China or Russia (or N Korea or Iran) particularly believe you!

Where you see self defence, they see a huge potential problem....so they go nuclear in response. Now no-one can attack each other...until someone develops an effective shield.....and then it'll spread to everyone else.....and we'll have to find another deterrent to mass conflict.

Try as much as you want - technology always spreads!



True - but so do China & Russia - they just haven't started going for it yet (well Russia did - but chose the wrong economic model.....now they know that capitalism works they'll try that instead)