You Can't Build Nukes. But We Can.
A decision has been made to update and redesign America's aging stockpile of nuclear weapons, even as the U.S. demands that Iran and North Korea not build up their own nuclear arsenals. Defend this tactic or conclude how it is hypocritical. Assess why Critics fear the project could send the wrong signal to the world.
View the article at: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2918809&page=1
View the article at: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2918809&page=1
posted by Mrs. Osimanti at 11:45 AM
17 Comments:
This is definately a hypocritical thing of the United States to do. I think this is an example of how we are taking some dramatic steps to position ourselves above other countries. Another example would be us invading Iraq, which was supposedto give the option of democracy to the people. Who gave us that right? And who then gives us the right to be updating our nuclear weapons while we demand other countries to ignore their own?
Its like the phrase "do as I say, not as I do", which is pretty much what the United States is saying. By doing this, I do not think we will earn support from other countries, if we cant even be consistant between domestic and foreign affairs.
I agree with Amelia, this is extremely hypocritical thing for the United States to do. It seems as though the United States feels like they have the "divine right" to pretty much do whatever they want. We have no right to be updating our weapons, while we force otheer countries not to touch theres. If we are "trying to curb the spread of nuclear technology," then why are we still working on ours?
If we want other countries to respect us, and support us, then we should absolutely not be updating our nuclear weapons. By doing this, it looks like we even aren't supporting our cause, and not only is that wrong, but it looks bad in the eyes of other countries.
I agree that this is not only hypocritical on the part of the US but it's also a bad idea. We should have learned from World War I that building up your military and weapons arsenal will only end negatively. Now that we have decided to build nuclear weapons, North Korea and other countries will have no reason to stop, and will probably even increase their nuclear weapon production. How can we expect other countries to stop building nuclear weapons when we won't even stop building our own?
Hypocritical...yes, wrong? Who can say? I can understand how many people could view this in a negative view because it could be equated to how Germany built up militarily before World War I. But if I understand correctly, we are just replacing our old and outdated nukes with new ones. We aren't really "building up". Also, I say that we can't tell if this is bad because we can't see into the future. What if we have a true need for these nuclear weapons in the future. I am a little bit surprised that no one has mentioned that we need to protect America too.
I agree with Chris in saying that this action might be hypocritical, but it might have also been done for a reason. I am not saying that America has the right to do this, but we can argue that America does have the power to do this. If President Bush feels the need to update our nuclear weapons, then it is possible the government knows something we don't know. All I am saying is that even though this might seem hypocritical, there could be a reason behind it.
I am confident that the US will not randomly try to take over other nations with nuclear force unless provoked. I do not trust other nations however. So, hypocritical or not, we can have nukes, and they can't.
I completely agree with Amelia that the US doesn't have any god given right to enter other nations and try to change their political system. We also can't tell other nations to get rid of their weapons completely while we just make more and more. Even if we know that we would not randomly attack another place, other countries can't get inside the mind of our government so they don't know that. We're sending the message that we are planning something and that we don't want anyone else to be prepared when we carry out our "plans." In this case, appearance counts and right now we look like we're planning to take over.
Basically, its like telling your friend "No you can't have a cookie!" while you yourself have your hand in the cookie jar. The message its sending people is a very negative one. Its telling them that we can't follow our own rules and that we also see ourselves above everyone else. "You can't have them, but we're better then you are so we can". It also sends a rather distrustfull message to the rest of the world.
I can see the logic behind the move, being that if everyone is now making their own nukes, we gotta make sure we've got some in order to protect ourselves if someone chooses to attack us. Its kinda like going back to WW1 and even the Cold War. We're doing this cause we wanna stay on top of the millitaristic totem pole. we want to make sure we've got the best military around should anyone want to start a fight. That is a cause of WW1 and also basically what the Cold War was all about.
Although the logic behind it is reasonable, it puts the country in a horrible light, and I think it is a stupid move on our part. If we really want to stop nuclear technology, we're going to have to start the ball rolling by disarming our nukes or at least stop production of them.
I think it is hypocritical of the U.S. to say this, but it is obviously for a reason. We can not trust all countries with this technology. If some countries help terrorist out why allow them to have such things?
After reading this article I feel very angery.
practice what you preach
I would write more but I feel my views have already been expressed though everyone else that has posted.
Thanks Nina Amelia and Heather
Personally I believe if the United States built up their nuclear weapons, it would be very hypocritical. A country cannot tell one country not to do something, and then follow through with it themselves. It's not moral, and it definitely sends mixed messages to those countries whom should NOT be building up their nuclear weaponry (Iran and North Korea). The US sometimes feels like they are the exception to rule and can bend things to their liking but not dealing with a situation like this.
This act is very hypocritical of the US. I feel that the program should stop.
However, rebuilding the arsenal could mean any number of things. We could just be making the bombs safer to store until they are needed (hopefully), or we might be producing more fuel (which is what we want the other countries not to do), or as the article says, we creating new designs so we can fire them from more launchers (which makes it faster to implement a nuclear bomb).
There is already enough fission power to blow up the world many times over. We don't need to do it better.
I think that the redesigning of the nuclear weapons is wrong in many ways. It is very hypocritical that we are at war, and very cautious of the making of nuclear weapons by other countries, yet we are doing the exact thing. We also claim that we can take any action to stop the risk of being attacked by nuclear weapons, and it is very possible that if the talk of these weapons continues, countries will declare that they have reason to attack us out of fear of our weapons.
I think this is horrible that we are building more nuclear bombs and telling other contries that they cannot have any. By building up out Military, we are sending a message to the world saying we have weapons, we are powerful and better then everyone else, And that is just the wrong attitude.
North Korea is starting to make bombs. The US feels threatened by them so we start to build up more power. Like the Cold war, we are just makiing a ton of bombs and pointing it at each other but no one hacoing the guts to light the fuse.
By building up a nuclear military, other contries are eventually going to feel threatened and do the same. Its only a matter of time until every country has a nuclear weapon and all hell could break loose. The only way to make sure this doesn't happen is for the US to stop making nuclear bombs. Eventhough they are siad ti "protect the contry" its really not. Its human nature to see someone doing something that looks like a good idea and copy them. Giving these other contreis ideas for nuclear weapons is doing the total opposite of protecting the contry.
Also, The US has to obey by what they preach. If they limit the use of Nuclear weapons on other contrires, then we should to. THis will cut down on the amount of nuclear weapons in the world and could eventually lead to a stable quieter world.
The United States needs to get over the idea that they rule the world and can tell others what to do, yet not follow their own rules. This is so blatantly hypocritical.
Building up our weapons is a very dangerous move. If other countries see us building up our weaponry what's to stop them from doing the same? They may just be worried about protection from us.
Whoa, Government Hypocrisy, I've never seen anything like this before...
Governments always have and always will be full of hypocritical laws, statements, and ideas. We have ex-drug addicts spearheading the anti-drug policy in America. We also over threw a foreign dictator for crimes against humanity and then abused his people in Abu- Ghraib. The list goes on...
I don't blame our government for wanting to upgrade their arsenal, but I think if they feel the change is necessary we really shouldn't be so verbal about nuclear programs. All this is going to do is enforce the world's assumption that America is full of ignorant leaders.
This exploit may be two-faced, but it also has been done with the right motives in mind. We as a nation have the power to do as we please and in order to maintain power for years to come, this may be a needed action. If Bush believes that we need to update our nuclear weaponry than possibly the government has information that gives them reason to carry out this act. We are being hypocritical however we are doing good not evil and we have the power to do so.
Post a Comment
<< Home