The United States and nuclear armament: Hypocrisy?

Watch
Misogynist
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Consider this: The United States is the only state to deploy a nuclear payload onto another nation state resulting in massive loss of life (and permanent disfigurement of subsequent generations). Between 1945 and 1992, the United States conducted 1,054 nuclear weapons tests - some close to neighboring territories. It holds the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, with active facilities for further uranium enrichment and warhead generation.

Now: North Korea and other nation states wish to also possess nuclear weaponry to defend themselves from United States aggression. The United States is policing this process, encouraging or forcing nuclear disarmament upon other nations as it threatens their national security. Is this not blatant hypocrisy considering they are the only nation to have used one, possess the largest nuclear arsenal and themselves tested 1,054 nuclear warheads within close proximity of neighboring regions?

Discuss.
0
reply
Divide Et Impera
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
The (((USA))) wants to put a central Rothschild bank in North Korea just like they did in Iraq, Afghanistan and soon Syria.
Good thing Kim is smart and is developing ICBM's and warheads, and good thing China lifts their sanctions so he can feed his people.
Can't wait till the USA f*cks off from Asia.
1
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Yeah, we could actually start selling nukes to every country on the basis that the US have them... Then the whole world would be at peace, wouldn't it?

North Korea and other nation states wish to also possess nuclear weaponry to defend themselves from United States aggression.
No, NK want nukes to preserve the tyrannical regime and dynasty enforced on their population since 1948. It is not NK, it is their despot who wants nukes to point at anyone who may imperil his vicious grip on the country. There is no 'US aggression', that is the crap he feeds his people to keep everyone awake at night and justify why they need him so badly.
0
reply
username2763536
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by Misogynist)
Consider this: The United States is the only state to deploy a nuclear payload onto another nation state resulting in massive loss of life (and permanent disfigurement of subsequent generations). Between 1945 and 1992, the United States conducted 1,054 nuclear weapons tests - some close to neighboring territories. It holds the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, with active facilities for further uranium enrichment and warhead generation.

Now: North Korea and other nation states wish to also possess nuclear weaponry to defend themselves from United States aggression. The United States is policing this process, encouraging or forcing nuclear disarmament upon other nations as it threatens their national security. Is this not blatant hypocrisy considering they are the only nation to have used one, possess the largest nuclear arsenal and themselves tested 1,054 nuclear warheads within close proximity of neighboring regions?

Discuss.
No US president has ever executed their own uncle by anti-aircraft gun as far as I'm aware.
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by Robby2312)
No US president has ever executed their own uncle by anti-aircraft gun as far as I'm aware.
Do you know why he was killed?
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by Misogynist)
North Korea and other nation states wish to also possess nuclear weaponry to defend themselves from United States aggression.
Disagree with the premise.

Pakistan and India didn't develop their nukes to deter the US.

What aggression has the US shown towards NK? It's not committed any hostile act against them since the armistice. It could be more accurately be described as paranoia on the part of NK.
1
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
It's called US exceptionalism. It's not new and you're not the first person to notice it.
0
reply
username2763536
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by zhog)
Do you know why he was killed?
It doesn't matter why.If you are that unstable that you execute someone using an anti-aircraft gun then you shouldn't have nuclear weapons.
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by Robby2312)
It doesn't matter why.If you are that unstable that you execute someone using an anti-aircraft gun then you shouldn't have nuclear weapons.
Oh, it's the choice of gun... His uncle was executed (and he was top dog) allegedly because he had sounded the Chinese on having the older half-brother (the murdered one) put in power instead when their father died.
0
reply
Misogynist
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by Drewski)
Disagree with the premise.

Pakistan and India didn't develop their nukes to deter the US.

What aggression has the US shown towards NK? It's not committed any hostile act against them since the armistice. It could be more accurately be described as paranoia on the part of NK.
No, Pakistan and India developed them to deter each other. That wasn't the premise of the post at all. The premise, put into simpler terms, is this:

Nobody complained when the US conducted not one but 1,054 nuclear weapons tests between 1945 and 1992. The US wants other nations not to have nuclear weapons but itself has the biggest stockpile of them. They scream bloody murder when another country develops nuclear capabilities but have practically demonstrated their ability to use them as a first strike weapon.

Irony: The United States wants to protect Japan from nuclear weapons whilst dropping two atomic bombs on it itself. They tout NK having a nuclear weapon as being the end of the world when they have demonstrated they will use nukes as first strike weapons themselves.
0
reply
Misogynist
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by Robby2312)
No US president has ever executed their own uncle by anti-aircraft gun as far as I'm aware.
Strawman. This isn't a thread about anti-aircraft guns or the loss of a single life. It's about megadeaths and nuclear weapons.
0
reply
Vikingninja
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by Misogynist)
No, Pakistan and India developed them to deter each other. That wasn't the premise of the post at all - and it clearly flew right over your head. The premise, put into simpler terms, is this:

The US are the only to country to haveactually used a nuclear weapon. Nobody complained when they conducted not one but 1,054 nuclear weapons tests between 1945 and 1992. The US also wants other nations not to have nuclear weapons but itself has the biggest stockpile of them.

Irony: The United States wants to protect Japan from nuclear weapons whilst dropping two atomic bombs on it itself. They tout NK having a nuclear weapon as being the end of the world when they have demonstrated they will use nukes as first strike weapons themselves.
There's a difference between peace time and war time, also they didn't use nukes as first strike weapons.
0
reply
username2763536
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by Misogynist)
Strawman. This isn't a thread about anti-aircraft guns or the loss of a single life. It's about megadeaths and nuclear weapons.
And you don't think that the temperament of a man who does that is relevant to the discussion?It's clearly relevant.If the north Korean leader does not give a damn about the thousands who starve to death in his country from famine then why would he care about wiping a city off the map with nuclear weapons?The type of person who owns nuclear weapons is entirely relevant.At least the US president is somewhat constrained by democracy and what other nations think.North Korea not so much.Its a bad idea to let someone ,who regularly threatens the west and who is clearly unstable, to own nuclear weapons.
0
reply
Divide Et Impera
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
Name:  1502479919766.png
Views: 192
Size:  228.8 KB
0
reply
Misogynist
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by zhog)
Yeah, we could actually start selling nukes to every country on the basis that the US have them... Then the whole world would be at peace, wouldn't it?
No, that's not what I'm arguing. The argument is: nobody imposed sanctions or stopped trading with the United States when they began to develop nuclear weapons. Nobody calls their leader a despot dictatorafter actually using a nuclear weapon. I mean, you probably don't care about this because you have the benefit of living in the UK/US or wherever but it's nice to step into someone else's shoes for a second and view it from their perspective.

No, NK want nukes to preserve the tyrannical regime and dynasty enforced on their population since 1948. It is not NK, it is their despot who wants nukes to point at anyone who may imperil his vicious grip on the country. There is no 'US aggression', that is the crap he feeds his people to keep everyone awake at night and justify why they need him so badly.
Look at how many US military bases have been established around the Korean peninsula. Look at how many missile bases that includes - then tell me there is no US aggression.

Image
0
reply
King Koala
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
#Team Kim.

U.S should keep out.
0
reply
Misogynist
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by Robby2312)
And you don't think that the temperament of a man who does that is relevant to the discussion?It's clearly relevant.If the north Korean leader does not give a damn about the thousands who starve to death in his country from famine then why would he care about wiping a city off the map with nuclear weapons?The type of person who owns nuclear weapons is entirely relevant.At least the US president is somewhat constrained by democracy and what other nations think.North Korea not so much.Its a bad idea to let someone ,who regularly threatens the west and who is clearly unstable, to own nuclear weapons.
Who do you think has worse temperament - Donald Trump or Kim Jong Un?
0
reply
Djerun
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by Divide Et Impera)
The (((USA))) wants to put a central Rothschild bank in North Korea just like they did in Iraq, Afghanistan and soon Syria.
Good thing Kim is smart and is developing ICBM's and warheads, and good thing China lifts their sanctions so he can feed his people.
Can't wait till the USA f*cks off from Asia.
"Feed his people"? Are you joking?? It seems you hold the view that Kim is some sort of benevolent dictator.
Have you even read the human rights reports?
The testimonies from the defectors?

The people are starving. Read up on it.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by Misogynist)
They tout NK having a nuclear weapon as being the end of the world when they have demonstrated they will use nukes as first strike weapons themselves.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki can not be in any way described as first strikes.
0
reply
Djerun
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by Misogynist)
No, Pakistan and India developed them to deter each other. That wasn't the premise of the post at all. The premise, put into simpler terms, is this:

Nobody complained when the US conducted not one but 1,054 nuclear weapons tests between 1945 and 1992. The US wants other nations not to have nuclear weapons but itself has the biggest stockpile of them. They scream bloody murder when another country develops nuclear capabilities but have practically demonstrated their ability to use them as a first strike weapon.

Irony: The United States wants to protect Japan from nuclear weapons whilst dropping two atomic bombs on it itself. They tout NK having a nuclear weapon as being the end of the world when they have demonstrated they will use nukes as first strike weapons themselves.
North Korea threatens the South and the USA with nuclear destruction every other day. Of course any nuclear developments would be frowned upon. Also, when the people themselves are starving, and the money that could have contributed towards their welfare is wasted on a nuclear program, it is no surprise that the country has widespread condemnation from other countries. They're priorities are in the wrong place.

You're saying the US committed a "first strike" action when they dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I classify a "first strike" (in this context) as a country attacking the other first. The Japanese did exactly that in the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. When have the United States used nukes as first strike weapons?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Who is winning Euro 2020

France (113)
27.56%
England (143)
34.88%
Belgium (31)
7.56%
Germany (41)
10%
Spain (9)
2.2%
Italy (34)
8.29%
Netherlands (14)
3.41%
Other (Tell us who) (25)
6.1%

Watched Threads

View All