|
|
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. |
|
There is no answer at this time. |
|
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 |
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 Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy |