Skip to comments.Why should we have Nukes??
Posted on 03/30/2009 12:35:19 PM PDT by Mind Freed
I was watching Bill Mahr this weekend - Not because I like him, trust him, or agree with ANYTHING he says, just to see what the other side is saying about things - and one of his guests was Hip Hop Artist Mos Def. Mos Def made a statement that I would like to know a little more about. I'm still learning about politics and history and things so I am hoping that there is a good answer to this question as it will probably come up in conversation with friends and family and I want to be prepared to have an answer. So... here is the question which Mos Def asked:
Mos Def: Why should America think we have the right to tell other countries that they cannot have Nuclear weapons when we have them too? Every country, including America, should give up their nuclear weapons and shutdown their nuclear programs.
Does this argument have any merit?
So we can ruin Obama’s family reunions.
Because we have something worth defending.
No, because no one can guarantee if the other side has nukes or not. India, for example, tested five nukes evading American satellites, and the world came to know about the tests only when the country's prime-minister announced it to his parliament.
Either we are the best and greatest hope for the world, or we are not.
And we invented them.
What do you think?
Because America is a force of good in the world and is the only nation that should determine who should or shouldn’t have nuclear weapons.
The argument sounds good, but just like many leftist ideas doesn’t work in practice. The only country that would follow it is us, leaving everyone else with nukes.
Us having them is the deterrent to other nations using them.
Nukes will be had. The idea that an absolute prohibition would work with something so desireable is ludicrous. How are our gun-free, drug-free schools these days?
Since they will exist, it is incumbent upon the strong and the just (that’s us) to do all we can to prevent the unsavory from obtaining them.
Are you serious?
My initial thought on it was that we never used a nuclear weapon for any purpose other than ending a war. Other countries want to use these bombs to gain power over the world, and many of the countries that have or want nuclear weapons are too unstable and have too many enemies to guarantee that neither one would shoot in anger.
>> Why should we have Nukes??
There are many reasons, grasshopper.
1) So we can nuke our enemies
2) because it’s better to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them
3) There’s no better way to destroy unnecessary double punctuation in a newbie’s FR post than to nuke it out of existence
4) Jobs at Los Alamos
5) Our nuke weapons program gives Hillary something to exchange with China in return for their buying our worthless treasuries
6) Nukes are just cool
7) I’m getting bored, but there are lots more reasons
I thought Germany started the process. We just happen to make/use the first ones.
Like I said, I’m still learning about all this stuff. At least I’m asking the questions and trying to get valid information and not just accepting what I hear on TV.
No, doesn’t have merit.
The reasoning is the same as why police have guns, who don’t allow criminals, children or crazies to have them.
What a Really Dumb Question! But I would expect something like that form him.
Very good. You don’t need the help of others. Sounds like you’ll do fine. :-)
A legitimate question! What right do we have to tell others not to possess nuclear weapons?
Even though I am a conservative, I believe that we have no moral right to prohibit other countries (France, Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, India, etc.) from owning nuclear weapons.
We have no logical arguments, and must therefore use persuasion and - if necessary - force to provent certain countries from coming into possession of nuclear weapons.
Be gentle. Not everyone has yet gone thru the same thought process as we have. We, too, were clueless about such subjects at one point.
One word: responsibility.
How many nations are responsible enough to have these weapons, to make sure these weapons don’t go rogue, to use these weapons as deterent and not as threats?
Because we invented them, thus, we own the patent and have the right to license that patent to whom we want and withhold that patent to whom we don't want to have it. It is simply protection of intellectual property...I bet you never thought you would hear that argument..
Possession of nukes by an irresponsible government or stateless terrorist group is unthinkable. These entities typically do not have the capabilities to develop their own nukes and must purchase the materials and knowledge on the open market.
In one word Deterrence. While China and Russia and other rogue nations have nuclear weapons or are developing them, the United States cornerstone of nuclear defense is to have nuclear weapons to counter. Have you ever heard of the phrase “Peace through Strength”? The phrase is more than catchy saying. Many nations are dictatorial and are therefore unpredictable. Keeping nuclear weapons out of their hands keeps the world safe and a policy that the US would wisely keep. World nuclear proliferation has to be kept in check.
So we can defend ourselves! Who would attack America if they knew we could blow up multiple cities? No one, that’s who. Who does the bully pick on at the playground, the 400 lb, 7 foot tall giant? Or the weakling? We have nukes so we can continue the be the best country in the world.
Sure it has merit. As soon as Mos Def, or whatever the hell his name is, can tell us how to VERIFY that every other country and terrorist organization on the planet has "gotten rid" of ITS nukes.
How about a follow-up question for you?: Assuming that only certain countries/organizations WILL have them, which of the following would you RATHER see in possession of nuclear weapons:
1) Iran or the United States?
2) Venezuela or Great Britain?
3) Communist China or Israel?
4) Pakistan or India?
5) AlQueda or the United States?
Germany had an idea of what to do, but never got in the ballpark for making one.
Plus the fact most of the Scientist where Jews...
Books you should read. There are a lot of others, but this will get you started.
David Horowitz, Radical Son, and The Politics of Bad Faith.
Ian Rand, Atlas Shrugged.
Orson Wells, Nineteen Eighty Four
These books will give you a good history of how we got here and how Liberal think.
Nation states instead have interests, and may choose in their own interest to invest in whatever they want, including nukes, and do so weighing the costs and benefits and risks.
It makes sense for middle-sized nations, who might be able to afford nuke programs, but at considerable expense, to voluntarily surrender their "right" to build nukes, in a situation where there is verifiable and widespread agreement by other nations to do the same.
The mid-sized nation might accept the threat or protection of a super power (like the United States or Soviet Union), in exchange for agreeing to not build its own nuke program.
Comparing the nation state to the human individual by analogy is almost always poor analysis.
Treating the United States with moral equivalence to other nations is a sign of ignorance. (Well, before the election of Obama it was.)
Tell me is murder illegal?
Why do criminal still kill?
Because they can.Now think about all the bad governments with nukes and ask your self why the US still has Nukes.
The world is "lucky" that the US had the first A-bomb.
If the Germans had it first, we'd all be speaking german.
If the Russians had it first, we'd all be speaking russian.
If Israel didn't have nukes, they wouldn't exist.
China has nukes - I think they see them mainly as a defensive weapon, and as a source of world prestige and power.
India and Pakistan nukes have probably prevented all out war between them.
Why does N. Korea need nukes? They can't even feed their own people. They only want them to threaten others.
Why does Iran want nukes? They're nuts!
Any relation to Ayn Rand? ;-)
Ditto. What sounded profound coming from Mos def was just the usual Hollywood/Music Industry vacuousness that passes itself off as intellectual. This is why you should never look to popular entertainment of entertainers for knowledge or wisdom.
Sure, it would be great if everybody got rid of nuclear weapons, but it will never happen, and it is extraordinarily foolish and naive to ever think it will happen. Any nation that does so voluntarily will find itself bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Not to mention, Orson Wells was the fat actor and director of Citizen Kane. George Orwell wrote 1984.
LOL, Good Catch... Rosebud 1984
This sums it up well:
Democracy and liberalism are not a sufficient defence and this is a fact that the ideologues of freedom need, equally, to comprehend. There is a fatal flaw in the liberal mind. Having established, in structure and form [though seldom in substance], a system of governance that corresponds to its conception of democracy, it feels that nothing more needs to be done. The Truths of the liberal ideology are, as the American Declaration on the Rights of Man expresses it, Self Evident. They require no proof, no reiteration, and no defence - certainly no defence by force of arms. Once democracy [or even the ritual of quinquinneal elections] is established, according to liberal mythology, the mystical invisible hand keeps everything in place; the superior wisdom of the masses ensures order and justice.... This is just so much rubbish. As we should know after living with falsehoods for fifty years now. Truth does not triumph; unless it has champions to propound it, unless it has armies to defend it.
From his book, Punjab: The Knights of Falsehood
Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, was born in Ludhiana, Punjab, India. He began his career as a police officer in the north-eastern state of Assam, quickly earning a reputation as a tough officer. He became a household name across the country as Punjab police chief in the early 1990s, when he was credited with crushing a separatist revolt in the Sikh-majority state.
Widely given credit for addressing the terrorism in Punjab, Mr. Gill was dubbed Super Cop after his success in Punjab. He publishes the Faultlines journal and runs the Institute for Conflict Management, as well as advising governments and institutions on security related issues. He was asked by the government of Sri Lanka last year for similar advice. Mr. Gill has also written a book, The Knights of Falsehood, which explores the abuse of religious institutions by the politics of freedom struggle in Punjab.
He got involved in sports administration after retirement and is currently the IHF (The Indian Hockey Federation) president.
He has also been appointed as a consultant by the Chattisgarh government to help tackle the Naxalite movement in the state.
Mr. Gill is a well known authority on counter terrorism advising governments and institutions on wide ranging security and counter insurgency issues. His analysis and views on the topic can be accessed at www.satp.org
For some critics his success is a part of the story started by predecessor Julio Francis Ribeiro who started the Bullet for Bullet campaign of hitting back at militants and the strong hand in dealing with militancy adopted by Chief minister Beant Singh.
‘Caused they signed a nuclear non-proliferation treaty?
Very interesting, bump to read more into later..
Most nation-states have pathetic military establishments when it comes right down to it. Their ability to wage war effectively is severly constrained. But you’ll notice that most wars involve poor countries. Now give those countries unfettered access to nuclear weapons with few safeguards (ain’t going to be any ‘nuclear football’ of permissive interlocks on first-gen, 3rd world nukes). What do you suppose WILL happen?
I question your sanity.
So far a number of countries have managed to get nukes. If a country wants to get them, they will go right ahead, provided they can afford the technology.
Surely no one is suggesting that the USA GIVE nukes to anyone?
The nuclear club has gotten rather large, the past several decades.
I love that movie!!! Friggin’ hilarious!!
Because our culture is superior to every other one on the face of the earth. More freedom, more liberty, more ability to trancend class based on your own achivement, more chance to invent a change that will alter the world and make you rich. Because we have had the Bomb for over fifty years, and have only used it twice, and that saved millions of lives on both sides. Because we have never flown airplanes into skyscrapers to make a political point. And we are all of the above...because we have the means to prevent other nations from taking it, and up until recently, have had the backbone to use it.
Oh, and because the only thing that keeps the little crackpot nations from using the ones that they have bought, made, stolen, or copied with the help of Democrats is that we have more, bigger, more deadly ones.
The nation with one or two bombs is more likely to use them (and expect not to receive a return missile exchange).
And it isn't just the US that wants to keep other nations from becoming nuclear powers. And there were those within the United States who aided Stalin's Soviet Union (via espionage) to give the Russians the Bomb.
Madelyn Albright said that she didn't want to see the US become the world's lone super power. Have to wonder what sort of mentality likes to see the US taken down a peg or three.
If we did give up our nuclear bombs, all of them, can we trust that the other nations would do the same? Saddam Hussein wouldn't even let UN weapons inspectors visit his sites without a lot of runaround. Consider Saddam a convicted felon. He was permitted to remain in power after the first Gulf War but there were agreements he never upheld. Among them was an end to his weapons programs. Whether he was successful in obtaining those weapons or not is beside the point, he was like a felon out on parole trying to obtain prohibited weapons in violation of his parole.
You don't have to hire a hitman to go to jail, if you make the effort to, you can be convicted.
Back to the nuclear powers, the bombs exist. They are not hypothetical. So what evidence do we have that they would all be destroyed? What basis do we have to believe that China, North Korea, Iran, etc would not continue weapons development?
There is a deterrence effect in having these weapons.
We probably would have seen a lot more conventional wars after WWII if there was no nuke.
And there has been an unwillingness to fight to win since WWII. We don't need to use a nuclear bomb to win or even threaten to use a nuclear bomb.
The nations we have been at war with since WWII could easily have been conquered with an all out assault (as we did on Germany).
The decision to go to war is not an easy one but all Commanders in Chief should be prepared to lead this nation in war. It goes with the job of the Presidency. Anyone unwilling to do so is unfit for the job.
Barack Obama has pledged to end our weapons development programs, to oppose the militarization of space (what do you think China's rocket launch program is about), and to cut the military budget (actually shift funding to a domestic civilian "security" force).
If I recall, the No Nukes protest movements came from those who believe we never could or should defeat the Soviet Union, that we would have to accept the USSR as a Communist entity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.