Should Weapons of Mass Destruction be renounced by all countries?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi trumpeted his "lead" in promoting world peace by renouncing weapons of mass destruction, and called on others including the US and China to follow suit.

On a landmark visit to Brussels, his first to Europe in 15 years, the maverick Libyan leader -- an international pariah until only recently -- said Tripoli now faces "common enemies" on the global stage.

Libya has now "decided to lead the peace movement all over the world," he said, trumpetting Tripoli's pledge do end its programs of mass destruction, which has been hailed notably in the United States and Britain.

"Libya calls all other countries from America to China to discard and get rid of all weapons of mass destruction, programs of mass destruction," he added. "Libya has become an example to be followed," he added.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/82135/1/.html

Should the United States, China, Russia, et. al., give up their WMDs?

[Goldmund]

1. What I want to know is...

...why have those who voted "No" voted that way.

[reel progressive]

2. israel has a right to defend itself

israel and the us should have nuclear weapons but everyone else should give them up ,,, the us should have them for obvious reasons and israel should because it is a small democracy surrounded by large hostile dictatorships

[MissMarple]

3. Interesting reasoning. Do you buy that at Wal Mart?

?

Also, Irael isn't "supposed" to have nuclear capability. They have sealed their lips and we just shouldn't ask.

[reel progressive]

6. prime minister sharon basically admitted it the other day

israel's nukes roccccccccccccccccccck

the us is the leader of the free world so it should have them ,,, we can trust ourselves

[MissMarple]

7. Trust ourselves???

And trust Israel? Right. George and Sharon are perfect, infallible beings. Who needs checks and balances when the Gods are in charge?

[reel progressive]

8. g_d is on israel's side

read the bible and torah ,,, we must not force g_d's chosen nation to face destruction at the hands of its large hostile neighbors

[TahitiNut]

9. "Gott Mit Uns" huh?

:eyes:

[Goldmund]

11. Dude,

I'm really curious: what makes you a progressive?

Or is that just another mispelled word, like "reel" and "g_d"?

[Solon]

13. That's a religious belief, and has no business in this argument.

Many people in other countries feel the same way, whether it is true or not us up to your god to decide, not you. Besides, if the rest of the world disarmed and the United States and Israel didn't, then they would both, within that day, declare nuclear war on any nation that wronged them, wiping them from the face of the Earth, killing millions, with no fear of retribution.

[ConcernedCanuk]

18. __ - Bye - bye - O "progressive" one !

.
.
.


.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. "for obvious reasons"? They aren't obvious to me. Please enlighten us.

What are these 'obvious reasons'?

[Goldmund]

5. Ah...

What can I possibly say to that armored Humvee of an argument?

[One_Life_To_Give]

10. I voted No because...

If all countries renounce WMD then only Rogues will have WMD.
Leaves as all open to WMD blackmail. Besides doesn't the MIT plan for deflecting a incoming asteroid require WMD to work?

OLTG

[Goldmund]

14. The "rogues"

First of all, I hate the way the word is used, because the US is also a 'rogue', as is Israel -- if the word means a state without regard for international law. But let's not get into that.

1) The "rogues" (as the word is commonly used here) are all small countries which could be dealt with using conventional weapons, if needed. Also, if this kind of a thing were to work, there would be a quick and non-controversial mechanism to use UN force against any facilities that were developing WMDs, and which would enjoy practically unanimous international consent. Is this a dream? Sure it is, it won't happen in today's world, but if it were to happen, that's what it would mean.

2) Since terrorism seems to be the only way to effectively confront a superpower, and since the biggest likelyhood of using WMDs comes not from "rogues", but from terrorists, a deterrent is meaningless.

[Solon]

15. Actually many nations already use WMD blackmail...

North Korea is one, so is the United States, and many others.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

23. If WMDs were outlawed, only outlaws would have WMDs

That's what having rules is all about. It means that if you don't follow the rules, you are a rule-breaker. So? :shrug:


Besides doesn't the MIT plan for deflecting a incoming asteroid require WMD to work?

lol, good one

[hughee99]

12. I voted no...

It sounds good on paper but it's not realistic. The only contries that anyone would trust with WMD's are the countries that don't want them (like Sweden). Weapons like this are basically only used to establish a negotiating position (see North Korea) since other countries have them too. Should we give up our weapons on the hopes that everyone else will actually do the same? It's clear you don't trust our govenment (and rightly so) but do you trust any other governments either?

[Goldmund]

16. Read the original question.

It wasn't "Should the US unilaterally give up WMDs"?

[hughee99]

19. Really, though..

Even if everyone were to agree to this, do you really trust the other nations to stick to their word? Do you even trust our government on this? If our goverment were to actually get rid of every chemical, bio and nuclear weapon that we had, and every other country claimed that it had also done so, would you feel safer? Do you think the world would be a better place? I think it would go even further to create that atmosphere of distrust that already exists among nations. The fact is that no nation will ever be able to prove that it doesn't have WMD's to everyone's satisfaction. Even now, at least 40% (I don't know the latest number but this is in the ballpark) still thinks Iraq has them.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. "Trust, but verify"

Ugh, I hate quoting Reagan.

[rucky]

17. Serious question: what is a "weapon of mass destruction"?

i think the definition is a little loose, and since we didn't see any in Iraq, I'm a little shaky on what defines one.

[hughee99]

20. Specifically

I believe it refers to any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, or the means to distribute them (such as long range missles). I'm not sure about the last part, but I thought that long range Scud missles with warheads able to carry any of the above 3 payloads were considered a WMD and not just a "banned weapon" according to the last Iraq UN resolution. I imagine ICBM's would also fall into this category, since they do not tend to have traditional payloads.

[rucky]

22. the Iraq resolution limited long range "conventional" weapons

that could reach Israel. I think that was separate & outside of the WMD definition.

Are Daisy Cutters WMD's? Depleted Uranium Bunker Busters?

[JohnLocke]

21. In theory, yes; in practice, no (nt).

[opihimoimoi]

25. I guess the guy wants to be a HERO, come visit DisneyLand, Las Vegas, etc

Be part of the Global Community. The only way is to be in a Peaceful mode.

[JohnLocke]

26. We need nuclear weapons to protect ourselves.

Maybe in your utopian, twisted view of the world we'll get rid of our nuclear weapons and North Korea, China, Pakistan, and India will follow suit. I live in the real world.

[opihimoimoi]

27. Who said anything about we getting rid of our nukes FIRST?

Its not a twisted view if we all find a way to rid ourselves of this waste together, oops, TOGETHER. Will it ever happen? At this rate, I sure as hell don't think so.... but it happens to be on my wish list.

However, I can be cynical too and express dismay at how we go about self extincting ourselves by not doing it. Murphy and Murphy has expressed this will happen soon enough.