Nonproliferation Treaty

The two you mentioned weren't exactly contrary to the idea that the US has violated the NPT.
 
Perhaps your ideology muscle is in the way of your reasoning muscle.

It seems that the argument that the US is in vioaltion of the non-proliferation treaty stems from a passage having to do with destroying stock on hand. When your enemy has nuclear devices, do you really expect another nation to disarm in hopes it'll present a goodwill gesture?

We are the strong arm in the NPT race. As long as we are armed, the chances of an attack are less than if we were unarmed.
 
spike said:
Pointing out that the poster's country is violating the NPT is pretty on-topic.
Click to expand...

Go ahead; keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

The topic was about A SPECIFIC country violating the NPT.
 
The title is Nonproliferation Treaty.

my question is, If the US is a signatory of the NPT, and is not following the treaty to the letter, where does it get off being the watchdog of other counties.

It's a case of who watches the watchmen.
 
Gonz said:
Perhaps your ideology muscle is in the way of your reasoning muscle.

It seems that the argument that the US is in vioaltion of the non-proliferation treaty stems from a passage having to do with destroying stock on hand. When your enemy has nuclear devices, do you really expect another nation to disarm in hopes it'll present a goodwill gesture?

We are the strong arm in the NPT race. As long as we are armed, the chances of an attack are less than if we were unarmed.
Click to expand...

I think you have little room to comment on my reasoning when you're simply making a ill fated attempt to justify treaty violations.

I think I've got the idea. The US and any other country you personally like are allowed to violate treaties at will but other countries absolutely must follow them.

That about right?
 
paul_valaru said:
The title is Nonproliferation Treaty.

my question is, If the US is a signatory of the NPT, and is not following the treaty to the letter, where does it get off being the watchdog of other counties.

It's a case of who watches the watchmen.
Click to expand...

Exactly, should have read your post before my last reply.
 
spike said:
The US and any other country you personally like are allowed to violate treaties at will but other countries absolutely must follow them.
Click to expand...

How about this scenario. Those with nukes keep them & those without have no need for them.

Paul...who's the bigger threat, Kim Jung Il or the US? C'mon, don't be goofy.

Since I'm incredibly lazy lately, I've not read the treaty, yet, so I'm not wholy conviced that the dump the stockpile argument is valid.
 
Gonz said:
How about this scenario. Those with nukes keep them & those without have no need for them.

Paul...who's the bigger threat, Kim Jung Il or the US? C'mon, don't be goofy.

Since I'm incredibly lazy lately, I've not read the treaty, yet, so I'm not wholy conviced that the dump the stockpile argument is valid.
Click to expand...

Did you even read the link I posted? I know spike didn't, or he'd have wandered off somewhere else to give a diatribe.

Peace at any price usually involves someone becoming a slave...
 
Gonz said:
How about this scenario. Those with nukes keep them & those without have no need for them.

Paul...who's the bigger threat, Kim Jung Il or the US? C'mon, don't be goofy.
Click to expand...

The those who have them need them and those who don't have them don't need them arguement has no reasoning behind it.

Who's the bigger threat? The US has used atomic weapons in the past and has recently invaded a sovereign country that was not a threat.

Answer to that question isn't so obvious.
 
spike said:
The those who have them need them and those who don't have them don't need them arguement has no reasoning behind it.

Who's the bigger threat? The US has used atomic weapons in the past and has recently invaded a sovereign country that was not a threat.

Answer to that question isn't so obvious.
Click to expand...


How often had America used atomic weapons AGAINST a foreign country?

What you are saying is that it is wrong for America to take action but OK for another country to invade another...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top