1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

US selling nuclear material to India

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by framed, Dec 10, 2006.

  1. framed

    framed New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wish i wasn't finding so many examples of my government being stupid, but here's another. The senate unanimously approved this bill to sell nuclear materials to India, the country that less than a decade ago almost started a nuclear war with Pakistan by detonating their own nuclear warhead. One of the conditions in the bill is that India agree to condemn Iran, the country that hasn't yet stepped over the line the way India did so recently.

    Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this? We condemn nuclear ambitions by our enemies, claiming that it makes them "the world's enemy", yet when our allies do the same we reward them for it. In this case its even against some UN non-proliferation treaties we signed. How can the United States be taken seriously diplomatically when we don't act consistently on matters like this? Why arent Iran and North Korea justified in pointing to India and saying "What makes our case different?" when we ask them not to test warheads? It seems to reduce the American argument against arms proliferation to nothing more than "they're our enemies, so the world should condemn them regardless of what they do" While our military lets us pull that off to an extent, I think our behavior on topics like this reduces our standing and credibility around the world, and will eventually come back to haunt us.

    This also confirms for me that the nuclear cat is out of the bag so to speak, and in 10 or so years we may well be selling nuclear material to Iran and North Korea. Its kinda scary to think about how many crazy people will be in control of nukes in the coming decade. I wonder how long before someone uses one again. Time to start digging that fallout shelter.
     
  2. FourBear

    FourBear New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    193
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've just basically wondered when the United States was given the power to determine who could handle nukes or not. As you bring up, how can we condemn certain countries from wanting to develop and research such weapons, when we undoubtedly possess a huge arsenal? Hypocrisy indeed.
     
  3. dong

    dong New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would think part of the license comes specifically from having that big arsenal and having the world think that yes, one is willing to use it if things aren't going their way.
     
  4. framed

    framed New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think Dong is right, theres an amount of "might makes right" going on, which any country who can pull it off would be silly not to make use of. I just think theres a limit to the amount of that you can do without backing up your words with some logic. That will become increasingly true as more and more countries become nuclear powers.
     
  5. dong

    dong New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To fill out Framed's point: one has to admit Condi was right when she said that at the moment, nobody in their right minds would actually use a nuclear warhead- that'd spell a global nuclear winter.

    So what we have is an internationally growing Mexican standoff instead. There is no real difference between nobody having a warhead and everybody having a warhead except a huge potential for accidents or a hotheaded momentary lapse causing everlasting doom.

    Again it's like the difference between having no winners and losers, and having winners and losers. So long as there is such a game in play, neutral parties are potentially losers unless they are allied with winners or become an active party in the game themselves.
     
  6. Furious George

    Furious George New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    223
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Mutually Assured Destruction.
     
  7. tater03

    tater03 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2006
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is things like this that make the United States look like it is run by a bunch of morons. Sorry, but some of the things that have been going on don't make any sense at all to me.
     
  8. dong

    dong New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's why I say that this is an era where absurdism has become le quotidien. The way the world operates is so twisted compared to our ideals yet the mechanisms of now were derived from the very same.
     
  9. mamab

    mamab New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    251
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Unfortunately, I think there have been a number of morons in and out of the government for decades, not just recently. I can think of a dozen other things that have happened in the past that I wondered, "What they heck are they thinking?!"
     
  10. mgsboy

    mgsboy New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Indeed....
     
Loading...

Share This Page