The Gun Is Civilization

[Atypical Liberal]

58. Selling is not the same thing as developing.

1. There are plenty of states and individuals willing to sell nuclear technology, and even potentially the weapons themselves. - "from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit" - so might makes right?

I have not advocated selling nuclear weapons. Again, I'm advocating nation states having the right of self-determination regarding their own military forces and equipment.

Were the Taliban not a sovereign entity over a territorial unit, but yet we did not recognize them.

Are you suggesting the United States should have officially recognized the Taliban as sovereign in Afghanistan and allowed them to build/obtain nuclear weaponry?

First of all, the Taliban were fighting against the official Afghan government.

Secondly, I think Afghanistan barely even qualifies as a nation state. It certainly is not one capable of developing and manufacturing nuclear weapons.

Note again that I am not advocating "obtaining" nuclear weapons outside of developing and manufacturing them oneself.

3. The WMD case was made and the United States said they were not free to develop whatever weapons the want.

Which of course was simply a ruse to get at the oil. But it was an immoral decision in any case. I could have seen military action against Hussein when he gassed the Kurds in Northern Iraq, but of course we did nothing until he invaded Kuwait, and then the limit of our engagement was to oust them from Kuwait.

Suppose they were developing WMD's and were planning on using them, by your logic of self-defense, Iraq had previously engaged in attacks against the United States, it's allies, and humanity. By your own logic, there is no international law that governs such activities. The problem was not the application of law to Iraq's activities, it was the preemptive rush to a military solution. If a en entity doesn't want to play by the rules of the game, there is no obligation not to bring economic force to bear and military means if not deterrent in accordance with the U.N. Charter.

Yes, this is very convenient for everyone who already has such weapons, isn't it? Again, it is not right that other countries already in possession of the same kinds of weapons can dictate to other countries that they cannot have them.

4. If the U.N. Security Council were to pass a resolution saying that if Iran weaponizes nuclear material and indicates an intent to employ it or to proliferate, would not there be a legitimate reason to deny Iran the supposed "right of self-determination, and that includes matters of national defense," that you maintain exists.

No. Mere development of weapons is not an excuse to intervene. Would the United States tolerate intervention against it for developing and possessing nuclear weapons? Why should any other nation tolerate this? You never answer this question.

"Obviously if a nation-state engages in genocide or some other heinous act then it is right to intervene." - Are you advocating military intervention in Syria?

I am torn on Syria, though I tend to say that no, I do not want to see direct US military involvement in Syria's civil war. I might consider arming the rebels so that they can fight their own fight.

Your trite equation of this as being some moral double standard is bullshit; this is a question of international security, and I for one would support military action if Iran posed a clear and present danger.

Oh, great, well, as long as it's for international security, hey, fuck national sovereignty!

Really this is no surprise. As you've demonstrated before, you are willing to screw over anyone's rights to secure your own safety. As long as it's someone else holding the gun for you, of course.