|
|
|
WSN PROPOSALS
|
submit your opinion
|
|
|
Stop the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction
|
|
|
|
Your Opinion
|
|
|
stop iran at all costs
February, 15, 2005
|
|
Stop the developement of nuclear weapons, there has to be justice in fighting power...no power for no one. Reduction of mass destructive weapons, reduction of nuclear weapons...this is a recommendation to imperial USA.
Chad
October, 24, 2004
|
|
What needs to asked is the question of why states such as Iran and North Korea want to develop weapons of mass destruction. One could argue that the underlining undercurrent is that of fear; there is a perceived threat and they feel that the cheapest and most appropriate instrument to addressing the capacities of this threat is through weapons of mass destruction. What makes weapons of mass destruction the most preferred means is that obtaining one has a magnifying effect, the utilization of one upon a military theater has a multiplication effect that an investment in 100 tanks could not achieve.
Hence, if one is truly serious about convincing states such as North Korea and Iran not to produce those weapons one must convince them that there is not a legitimate threat against them. It will hard to convince North Korea to dismantle its nuclear program if the US appears militant and refuses to sign a non-aggression treaty with them; it will be hard for Iran to dismantle every form of WMD program they have when Israel maintains theirs; it will hard to convince India to dismantle their WMD program when Pakistan and China preserve their own. The best example to show what the elimination of a perceived threat can do in terms of ending a state’s WMD program is South Africa; once they were convinced that their neighbors did not have aims of destroying her she peacefully dismantled. Until this perceived threat is not dealt with, states under threats will armed themselves with WMD---it’s the cheapest and most effective means of deterrence and insurance policy in case all else fails. As long as the US, France, Britain, Israel and the like maintain their industrial-military complexes (the US with is national missile defense being one main example) it will hard to tell others to disarm. Disarm for what? When others hold the sword on their right hand and the hammer on left yet speaks of peace, one must be careful, cautious, and prepared incase the dove above their head dies. That is the logic driving proliferation: the sword on the other people’s hand.
Canada
May, 07, 2004
|
|
First the obvious must be stated: the foremost WMD of concern is the nuclear device. Other weapons are dangerous and are matters of great
concern and must also be dealt with, but nuclear devices come first.
There is only one way to ensure the end of development of WMD by any
nation, including regimes that are unstable, proven to be providing aid to terrorists who would employ WMD in terrorist causes. That is to smash the facilities in which said research can be accomplished. If those programs are carried out at secret locations, then the next better alternitive is to obliterate the center of the government involved.
For forty years the western world has been under assult. This has ranged from airline hijacking murders, to Olympic murders, to the atrocities of 9/11/01. Terrorists and terrorist regimes have proven their long stated intent to indescriminately murder people, destroy property and destabilize societies, economies, and governments of the western industrialized world.
The civilized world can no longer afford to sit idly for the sake of public relations while rogue nations such as North Korea and Iran develop nuclear weapons and the means by which to deliver them. One may expect those weapons to be to be provided to insane religious terrorists, to be employed against industrialized nations, thereby avoiding direct responsibility falling on the providers of those devices. The governments of nations such as North Korea, Iran and Pakistan (which may well be turned over to Islamic extremeists in the next election) would not tolerate mad dogs in their community, but are in fact the mad dogs of the world community. A demand to disarm and warning of impending doom should be issued by a united front of the industrialized world. If others will not cooperate then the US should proceed alone. The prosecution of one punishment for defiance may be adequate to obtain cooperation from all other offenders. North Korea would be an appropriate beginning, as it does not provide the claim of anti-Islamic bigotry. Further, it has been a singularly notorious offender in spreading WMD technology to "mad dog" regimes.
In the past there has been much time available to permit rogues to go about their way, tolerating their beligerance because they lack means or will to deliver their tantrum-developed weaponry. Those days are past. The appearance of "religious" terrorists means we no longer enjoy the luxury of a 20 year period in which to promote tolerance in totalitarian and select Islamic countries.
United States
April, 28, 2004
|
|
This proposal is very nice only if it applies to everyone, including the USA and other powers. Is the US less likely to use abusively WMD than other countries? The answer is no, as Japan, Vietnam, and Iraq have shown.
Further, the USA is looking into the development of "Dirty Nuclear" bombs to be used in localized war.
So, it is a hypocracy and an abuse of dominant position to expect less powerful countries submit themselves, while the powerful nations continue building their military superiority.
To have a safer world, all WMDs have to be eliminated, and all suspect aénd military nuclear facilities around the world have to be inspected. Otherwise, we are acting no differently thn we have been during the last 4000 years, where the dominant power(s) dictate(s) their rules and pretend as if it is an absolute truth.
April, 17, 2004
|
|
Register here for free
Print
Support us
Get Newsletter
|
|
|
|
