Google Answers Logo
View Question
 
Q: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's? ( No Answer,   20 Comments )
Question  
Subject: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
Category: Relationships and Society
Asked by: dancingbear-ga
List Price: $10.00
Posted: 22 Feb 2005 16:04 PST
Expires: 24 Mar 2005 16:04 PST
Question ID: 478984
I believe the most important question that should be preoccupying
anyone with global security /safety concerns would be to how catalyze everyone to
find the answer to and commit to an action plan for this question-

What will it take to eliminate the USA's weapons of mass
destruction?  So, I thought I would start here.
Answer  
There is no answer at this time.

Comments  
Subject: Re: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
From: david1977-ga on 22 Feb 2005 16:42 PST
 
No matter what may be the cause of it the only way to get rid of them
is to have no wars.
Subject: Re: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
From: just4fun2-ga on 22 Feb 2005 16:52 PST
 
MAD - Mutual Assured destruction 

Now eliminate the USA's WMD and what do you have:

AD - Assured destruction.
Subject: Re: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
From: dancingbear-ga on 22 Feb 2005 17:04 PST
 
David1977-
It seems that many of the of the wars in recent history have involved
nations that did not posess WMD's.

Just 4 fun- your comment seems to assume that the USA wold get rid of
thier WMD's but nobody else did in the process.  I would imagine one
way for the USA to get rid of them would be to create a Mutually
Assured Elimination of WMD's.
Subject: Re: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
From: david1977-ga on 22 Feb 2005 17:10 PST
 
Dancingbear, the only way to get rid of all wmd's is for their never
to be a war again. It isn't that some country's have wars with out
also having wmd's. But the only way all of the country's would ever
possibly get rid of them is if there were no more wars. As long as
there are wars wmd's will exsist.
Subject: Re: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
From: dancingbear-ga on 22 Feb 2005 17:27 PST
 
I"m not saying i disagree with you david1977- I'm simply trying to be
dispassionate about my own beliefs and explore all the possibilities. 
Because of the huge investment the USA and other countires have in
MAD- one cold argue that the existence of WMD's prevents wars- and
that as long as we have them we could live in a state of peace with no
wars.  I don't personally beleive this to be true- but I think some
people do.  I guess what I'm wondering is it possible to recognise
that having a weapon that delivers MASS destruction would also
eliminate wars- for al life as we know it.  Is it possible that some
people would agree to not use these but still reserve the right to
fight/ go to war?
Subject: Re: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
From: just4fun2-ga on 22 Feb 2005 17:49 PST
 
A single gun is a WMD - used against one person.  It's a nice thought
to eliminate all weapons, including weapons that kill in mass numbers.
 But where would you draw the line. A 2000 pound bomb dropped by laser
guidance at the right time and right place could kill more people than
a nuke dropped by laser guidance at the wrong time and wrong place.

The Roman army was a WMD in comparison to some little village that
happened to be in it's way.

In a world of Free trade and Democracy the "best interest" of
countries is to make money not wars - so maybe Bush is right - free
countries don't make war on each other - which could lead to the
elimation of WMD because they would become unnecessary in a world
where you can buy what you need, instead of taking it by force.
Subject: Re: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
From: dancingbear-ga on 22 Feb 2005 19:01 PST
 
So... the two theories we have to resolve the question are- have no
more wars and pursue free trade and democracy.  It does seem that if
these two states existed- maintaining WMD's would seem to be a waste
of money.  However- is Democracy really a necessary part of the
solution?  What about countries that have a long history of Monarchys
or single party governance?  Can they be allowed to stay that way, as
long as they play nicely with the rest of the globe when it comes to
free trade?  It seems to be the deal the US has struck with Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait and other middle eastern countries and China, Pakistan
and others. For some reason we can't seem to offer the same to Cuba-
but this will eventually change.
 I wonder why we couldn't engage in  a global disarmament agreement
that required the top Nuclear powers to begin to reduce & decommission
their WMDS in proportional percentages- with the intent to eliminating
the stockpiles.  As the stockpiles were reduced to certain levels-
more countries who posess WMD's would participate. Sort of like the
end of the cold war- but on a global level- with heavy penalties for
noncompliance (one of the things the US got away with by breaking the
ballistic missile treaties- ther were no immediate painful no
consequences).
Subject: Re: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
From: david1977-ga on 22 Feb 2005 22:25 PST
 
Well it all depends on the nations. I mean if some of the smaller
nations would gain something from getting rid of there weapons then I
can see them pursuing that option, but more than likley by doing so
they gain the protection of a larger country. I mean as nice as it
would be for all country's and nations to disarm it would not happen
as someone would have to have the power to defend the other nations.
The only way everyone could possibly agree to get rid of the weapons
is if a proven treaty was brought fourth and maintained by all
nations. By proven I mean a long exsisting treaty.
Subject: Re: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
From: capitaineformidable-ga on 23 Feb 2005 02:08 PST
 
The only way to eliminate the USA?s stockpile of WMD?s is to have a
war and use them all up.

The SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) started by President Regan
and continued by others had the effect of greatly reducing the numbers
of nuclear warheads held by the USA and the former Soviet Bloc, we
believe. The argument has always been that you can?t un-invent the
technology however desirable this may be, and what if the USA had none
and Iraq secretly had as many as America has now? What should be the
position of The West if say India and Pakistan threatened or even
started a nuclear war with each other?  This is the argument that the
one with the biggest stick owns the moral high ground. What if the
Islam nations held the moral high ground and threatened the ?American
way of life?? I?m afraid that I am only clever enough to ask these
questions not to know the answers! One way, I suppose is for every
nation in the world to belong to some ?World? EU type organisation but
this is a long way off.

Besides, nuclear weapons may not be good things to have but they are
good things to build, in that they cost a lot of money and their
existence can be justified. At times when the economic cycle turns so
that goods are stockpiled in warehouses, production stops and workers
have relatively little money in their pockets, a way to break the
cycle and put money back into peoples? pockets is for the government
to increase public spending on things which don?t produce a surplus.
It could be NASA funding; building another Route 66 alongside the
first one; having a war with someone or building nuclear warheads.
Some would argue that this is the true function of government. It
seems that nobody wants WMD?s but also nobody wants the consequences
of being without them.

Cf.
Subject: Re: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
From: xarqi-ga on 23 Feb 2005 02:36 PST
 
A screwdriver and some wire-cutters.
Subject: Re: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
From: dancingbear-ga on 23 Feb 2005 05:40 PST
 
Why didn't I think of that in the first place xarqi?  You bring the
screwdriver and I'll bring the wire cutters.  Let's meet tomorrow
morning and get to work ;-)
Subject: Re: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
From: shockandawe-ga on 23 Feb 2005 05:52 PST
 
First they'd have to find them!
Subject: Re: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
From: shockandawe-ga on 23 Feb 2005 05:54 PST
 
Remember, The US isn't the size of Texas, its about the size of ALL
FIFTY STATES COMBINED.

They'll never find them.
Subject: Re: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
From: dancingbear-ga on 23 Feb 2005 06:06 PST
 
While I am not certain of the facts-my guess is that if we- the world-
used up all the WMD's in a war -  those of us who are left would have
a very different existence- and I imagine the building and using of
more WMD's would be the last thing on our radioactively fried brains.

As for the need to create some "World 'EU'" oranization- we already
have one- the United Nations.  Two things we could do to begin to move
the USA on a path of WMD disarmant would be to enact one of the ideas
from Kuciniak (sp?) from the last US presidential election. If elected
he promised to establish the the Deparetment of Peace, a cabinet level
position.  If given to the right person, this one act alone would
create an interesting scenario for the Secretary of Defense and other
HAwk positions of the Executive branch.  I would guess that Global
nuclear disarmament would be on the agenda of this new department.
The other thing that the US could do would be to become a full fledged
member of the UNited Nations- by agreeing to be bound by international
law (this would make it more challenging to invade soverign nations
who have done nothing to the US and easier for US military and
officals to be held accountable for war crimes- which the US holds
itself exempt from today).  The US could also begin to pay it's full
share of UN dues- which would greatly empower the organization.  These
2 actions alone would let the  rest of the world know that the USA is
no longer interested in being the biggest Bully on the block -
protected from scrutiny and consequences from peer member nations.  I
envision these as baby steps towards gaining credibility to build the 
global will to remove the threat of need of the need for WMD's- and
eventually the need to posess them at all.

As for how the military industrial copmex is good for the economy-
what we don't know is what would happen if we committed the same or
some percent of those resources to eliminating poverty, illiteracy,
and human trafficking on the planet.

The pentagon's annual budget is over $400 billion dollars a year. This
is more than what China, Russia, The"Axis of Evil" and ALL of our
allies COMBINED spend on their respective miltaries.  Don't we think
there is some room to level the playing field and then begin a global
conversation of WMD diarmament?
Subject: Re: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
From: just4fun2-ga on 23 Feb 2005 11:03 PST
 
DancingBear wrote:
The pentagon's annual budget is over $400 billion dollars a year. This
is more than what China, Russia, The"Axis of Evil" and ALL of our
allies COMBINED spend on their respective miltaries.  Don't we think
there is some room to level the playing field and then begin a global
conversation of WMD diarmament?

Level the playing field???  I don't want a level playing field.  I
don't want China, Russia to be anywhere close to us militarily. I have
always felt that it is a misnomer to say the "Pentagon Annual Budget
is".  The Pentagon does not pick a number and then gets that amount. 
I believe, Americans pick the number and the Pentagon gets that
amount.  Just to clarify, we vote for the size of our military. If
Americans wanted a small military without WMDs, we would have a small
military without WMDs.  American's do NOT trust other countries - the
proof is that we agree with huge military budgets.  And why do you
think France and England and all the other countries in the world have
small budgets....?  It's because America will protect them.

I believe the world is NOT what is spoon feed us nightly on the news. 
The world has no policemen, no rules, and countries do what they want,
when they want to.  Example, if you kill someone - you go to prison. 
If China kills someone, or the Russians, or the English, or France, or
the Americans - nothing happens.  There are no rules, only
repercussions.  Take Cuba - repercussions - they do not get to do
business with America.

When I was younger and we had gas lines at gas Stations, people would
steal gas or cut in line or wait in line then fill up and then drive
away without paying.  At my local gas station I waited and finally had
the chance to fill up.  And there was the owner - he had a gun
strapped to his hip.  A big gun.  What was interesting is that
everyone was very, very polite. No cutting in line, no stealing of gas
- just Smiling and cheery people.  And all he did was walk around
collecting the money and being nice to his customers.

I learned something that day.  People need rules, enforced with force.
We like it!  Countries need repercussions, enforced with force.

It all comes down to: Do you believe America acts on the world stage -
responsibly.  Do you believe that America's WMD are used to control
those who WOULD BE uncontrollable.

I think the world has voted - with the money they spend on their
militaries - America does act responsibly.
Subject: Re: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
From: imadad-ga on 24 Feb 2005 08:29 PST
 
Um... The United States is the only Nation to use WMD's on a civilian
population. And we did it twice.

Now to eliminate USA's WMD's we need to take them apart, destroy them,
and hope nobody does to us what we did to 'end' WW II.
Subject: Re: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
From: xarqi-ga on 24 Feb 2005 15:28 PST
 
The Kurds might disagree, and I wonder if Bhopal might not also be
included in the reckoning.
Subject: Re: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
From: dancingbear-ga on 25 Feb 2005 08:17 PST
 
First- to respond to some of Just4Fun2's points:
You said: "I have always felt that it is a misnomer to say the
"Pentagon Annual Budget
is".  The Pentagon does not pick a number and then gets that amount. 
I believe, Americans pick the number and the Pentagon gets that
amount.  Just to clarify, we vote for the size of our military."

Actually, Americans vote for congress and the executive branch. 
Congress creates a budget in collaboration with the executive branch
which then approves or vetoes the budget.  The Pentagon- Military-
actually does come up with a number for its part of the budget. 
Lobbyists and others who have a vested interest in the proposed budget
get to work- wining and dining influential members of the house and
senate to ensure that all pets projects get funded. The final number
for the Pentagon is scrutinsed by congress before being accepted.  I
am pretty sure that most Americans have no idea what goes into the
pentagon budget- nor how bloated it is.  Having had the amazing
opportunity to work as a contractor in a naval shipyard- I was
flabbergasted to see how each of the ships under construction there
were going triple and quadruple over their original cost bids - this
translated into billion dollar overuns - and I was told this was
business as usual.  But we digress - except for the fact that the US's
WMD's are part of the Pentagon budget which takes on a life on a life
of its own.

You also said :"The world has no policemen, no rules, and countries do
what they want,
when they want to.  Example, if you kill someone - you go to prison. 
If China kills someone, or the Russians, or the English, or France, or
the Americans - nothing happens.  There are no rules, only
repercussions.  Take Cuba - repercussions - they do not get to do
business with America."

Actually there are rules, International Law, and we use the United
Nations and organizations like NATO to police each other.  One of the
problems with International Law and the Global court is that the
United States holds it's military exempt from International Law.  This
is what I mean by leveling the playing field.   Why wouldn't we hold
ourselves to a shared international code of conduct?  Our only reason
is not because there is something inherently objectionable in the laws
themselves- it's that we are afraid of giving up control of measuring
the appropriate conduct of our military over to an international
standard.  Given what has occurred in Iraqi prisons - I would have
much rather seen the incidents of torture and abuse come under
international scrutiny- since I believe that those at the highest
parts in the chain of command would have been held accountable.  - But
again we digress- except to say that the United States lack of
participation in international law weakens the possibility for a
global 'rule of law' to guide the actions of all nations.

In response to imadad and xarqi- I have to agree with xarqi-
the definition of WMD: W.M.D. n : a weapon that kills or injures
civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and
biological weapons).
Technically- maybe what Hussein did to the Kurds doesn't count since
he wiped entire villages of civilians and no, or not enough, military
were killed.  During the first Gulf War, the US used so called Dirty
Bombs in Iraq (which they do not admit or deny- they simply refuse to 
comment on) - which would bring the total number of times we have used
WMDS higher.  I am not sure what Bhopal is in reference to?

What I have gleaned from just4fun2's response is that there is a basic
element of distrust between nations- and that most of our allies and
may small countries are comfortable with the US carrying the military
burden for their defense.
So, my question is - how do we increase trust so that it is not
necessary for the US shoulder this Burden?


I think the part of the answer might be in the course we have taken
with China.  I don?t know if you remember- but not to long ago- China
was the only big bad red guy in the world.  A tightly controlled one
party system with human rights abuses too numerous to mention. 
Certainly not to be trusted - only feared.  I remember when one of the
networks did a tv movie based on a scenario where communist China took
control over the US.

Now the US has helped China become part of the WTO- not because they
have remedied all their human rights abuses- or allowed a multiparty
democracy- but because trade has become more important than military
strength building.  By including China as an equal player on the world
trade stage- China has begun to change- in a way that works for China.
 There is almost an unwritten agreement in China with it?s people- You
stay out of politics and we will let you pursue private business
ventures and ownership (Chinese capitalism) that create wealth for you
and your family.

What would happen if we were to take a similar approach to the North
Koreans and Iran?
Which ? by the way- is how Europe is approaching Iran- by creating
trade incentives for them to not develop nuclear arms.  The US was
invited to participate with Europe in this and they declined.
Subject: Re: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
From: dancingbear-ga on 25 Feb 2005 23:56 PST
 
Tonight on Bill Maher- on HBO - there was a black Congresswoman- Rep.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones.  They were having a conversation that included
something aobut Muslims- and how in certain muslim countries the men
refuse to shake the hands of women.  She said that that didn't bother
her- that people in other countries- do not share the same religious
or political beliefs that we do.
Maher challenged her with the analogy of a White man not willing to
shake the hand of a black person.  She said that wasn't an appropraite
comparison - and don't pull race on her.

What was amazing was to see a black woman elected representative of
our country- who was profoundly aware of slavery and the
suffraggettes- defend with tolerance- not just tolerance- but comfort-
the institutionalised discrimination against women in a religion.  
And she didn't back down!  This was both eye, heart and mind opening
for me.
Subject: Re: What would it take to eliminate USA's WMD's?
From: pugwashjw-ga on 03 Apr 2005 09:08 PDT
 
When the Roman armies controlled the known world at the time, It was
safe [comparatively]for citizens to travel and go about their
business. The point being made here is that it was they who carried
the biggest stick. But nothing lasts forever where weapons are
concerned. Micah 4;3

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you.
Search Google Answers for
Google Answers  


Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy