Should the United Nations Have More Authority to Regulate Nuclear Arms?

[SOS2008]

...under Article VI we currently have a right to disarm, we're not doing that, neither is anybody really. I think other countries do have some legitimate grounds to call the treaty void, or at least hold the P5 in violation, however, as that hasn't happened and they are signatories we do have the right to demand that they not acqire Nuclear Weapons.

True indeed about disarming, though as stated by others, once the knowledge, materials, etc. are owned, how can it be contained? And what if a "rogue" country obtains this ability? Why is it assumed these countries will be any less responsible--are they going to use these weapons to go around forcing their political beliefs on other countries? Heaven forbid! I think it is fair to assume they just want to defend themselves (no one has a Department of War anymore, do they?). With regard to terrorism, 9-11 proved terrorists don't need nuclear ("nu-cu-lar") weapons to cause tremendous damage, and in fact fear has been more on the biological side of weaponry, etc. I think this may all be just another pretense for starting another war...

 

[loseyourname]

I just noticed this post. When has Iran, in modern history (since the Persian Empire) attempted to conquer a neighbor? In the last war with a neighbor, it was Iraq that attacked Iran.

That depends on who you ask. The war between the two officially began when Iraq invaded Iran, but they have always maintained that doing so was a defensive measure, in that Iran had been launching missile strikes for a while before that. Personally, I wouldn't want either country possessing nuclear weapons.

 

[russ_watters]

Why are India, Israel and Pakistan considered "important nonsignatories"? Why would any non presently nuclear armed country be motivated to sign the NPT?

Because the three of them have nuclear weapons. There aren't any other nonsignatories with a reasonable chance of acquiring them.

With regard to terrorism, 9-11 proved terrorists don't need nuclear ("nu-cu-lar") weapons to cause tremendous damage, and in fact fear has been more on the biological side of weaponry, etc.

"tremendous damage" is still a pretty relative thing. A nuclear bomb set off between the towers would have killd several orders of magnitude (certainly more than 2, possibly more than 3) more people. Are we really prepared to risk a million deaths?

I think this may all be just another pretense for starting another war...

With whom?

 

[SOS2008]

Because the three of them have nuclear weapons. There aren't any other nonsignatories with a reasonable chance of acquiring them. "tremendous damage" is still a pretty relative thing. A nuclear bomb set off between the towers would have killd several orders of magnitude (certainly more than 2, possibly more than 3) more people. Are we really prepared to risk a million deaths?

Of course not, but I went on to say that biological warfare has been of more concern, and the magnitude of this could be pretty tremendous. As for 9-11, true it does not compare to what a nuclear bomb could do. According to Bin Laden, 9-11 achieved their goal of damaging the economy. Certainly no one would like to see any of these weapons in the hand of terrorists. I don't agree with their philosophy, and certainly no one agrees with their tactics, however it isn't to say they are necessarily insane. Someone would have to be insane to want inhalation of the world.

With whom?

North Korea and/or Iran?

 

[misskitty]

Just because I can ask, what would be the deciding motivator for starting a war with Iran or North Korea? Why would we waste the money? We've already gone to war and succeeded in overthrowing a government and putting ourselves into MASSIVE debt. We have accomplished the mission and now its time to bring our soldiers home. When did Iran or Korea threaten us? Besides, Korea is involved in talks with Japan, China, and South Korea about disarming.

 

[SOS2008]

That depends on who you ask. The war between the two officially began when Iraq invaded Iran, but they have always maintained that doing so was a defensive measure, in that Iran had been launching missile strikes for a while before that. Personally, I wouldn't want either country possessing nuclear weapons.

It's true there has been historical dispute of lands on the border. However, I'm more likely to believe what Iran says than Iraq--I wouldn't believe anything Saddam has said, especially since he was running the country into the ground and was always looking for diversions--He turned around and did the same thing to Kuwait after that.

 

[misskitty]

I can agree with that. Saddam is known for his corrupt and hypocritical policies. I'm with loseyourname, I wouldn't want either country to posess nuclear missles. They might find any excuse thye could to inihilate each other.

 

[evthis]

a lot of people are talking about "rights" that come from treaties and such. However, when I first started this post I was thinking about "rights" in terms of what is right and wrong. There are legal rights (rights granted by treaties and there is right from wrong.

 

[loseyourname]

a lot of people are talking about "rights" that come from treaties and such. However, when I first started this post I was thinking about "rights" in terms of what is right and wrong. There are legal rights (rights granted by treaties and there is right from wrong.

A right granted by a consentual contract is just as moral as a natural right. If a person borrows $70 from you, and signs a contract saying he will pay you $80 in return over the course of the following three weeks, you have every right (including a moral right) to demand that he honor his agreement.

 

[misskitty]

That is a good point. Its a basic pillar in economics for banks and other lenders.

 

[misskitty]

However, we are not discussing economics here. We're discussing when you should/not own nuclear arms or have that kind of capability and who has the right to say so.

The United Nations should has more say on this issue than I think anyone ahs mentioned. If its not the place of the United States to step in and tell a country to disarm, it maybe appropreiate for the United Nations to step in.

If more than one country is in agreement that someone should not have nuclear capability and it is brought to the attention of the U.N. then that country should disarm and do it without arguing. As a precautionary measure to protect others.

 

[loseyourname]

However, we are not discussing economics here. We're discussing when you should/not own nuclear arms or have that kind of capability and who has the right to say so.

The United Nations should has more say on this issue than I think anyone ahs mentioned. If its not the place of the United States to step in and tell a country to disarm, it maybe appropreiate for the United Nations to step in.

If more than one country is in agreement that someone should not have nuclear capability and it is brought to the attention of the U.N. then that country should disarm and do it without arguing. As a precautionary measure to protect others.

The problem with that is the United Nations is largely a figurehead agency. Aside from the aid missions it provides, it serves little tactical purpose. It has no military force of its own to back up its mandates. No request made by the UN has any weight behind it unless it is the weight of a security council nation, and more often than not, that nation is the Unites States. Not to say that the US has been the only nation willing to step in during these situations, but the other nations that have been willing just aren't strong enough to go it alone.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The only weapon the UN has is sanctions. That was the only weapon the League of Nations had too. They failed then and they failed recently; they make the people suffer but the governments of nations can just ignore them and game the system, as happened with the humanitarian exceptions to the sanctions against Iraq.

What the UN should do instead of sanctions is to sic the IMF on bad countries! (see Confessions of an Economic Hit man thread )

 

[misskitty]

The only weapon the UN has is sanctions. That was the only weapon the League of Nations had too. They failed then and they failed recently; they make the people suffer but the governments of nations can just ignore them and game the system, as happened with the humanitarian exceptions to the sanctions against Iraq.

What the UN should do instead of sanctions is to sic the IMF on bad countries! (see Confessions of an Economic Hit man thread )

Ok. I can see that. Now here's another thing. If the United Nations has limited power like the League of Nations did, why, when it as formed, was it not given more power and authority? I don't know if that make sense, but wouldn't it make more sense for the U.N. to have more power so that it could step in with situations about owning nuclear weapons? Especially where everyone is so concerned today with who got 'em and who might get them.