Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 60

Thread: Gun rights and nuclear weapons?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Normal, IL
    Posts
    1

    Question Gun rights and nuclear weapons?

    This is an issue for which I have no clear answer, but I have been wondering if support for the 2nd Amendment, and gun rights in general, has any connection to my opinions about each nation's right to develop a nuclear weapons program. Why should we believe that a nation should not be able to have nukes if we believe that citizens should be able to have guns? OK. Since I do not think that North Korea, for example, should have nukes, I might say that it is a rogue nation that has forfeited this right (like a felony convict or a mentally unstable person may not buy a gun). But what about Indonesia? Peru? Mexico? I prefer that we have fewer nukes in the world, but whose to say who may have them? What do you think?

    Background:I think, currently, these countries have nuclear arms: U.S., Israel, China, Pakistan, India, France, Russia, UK

  2. #2
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    If they have nukes, they have the power to tell us no when we demand they do our bidding. To make it simple, it's a way for the bully to keep the bullied from becoming strong enough to fight back.

    We sell this lie to the people on the pretense that we can not trust these nations with the power that nuclear weapons will give them. but the above is the true reason.

    lets create a hypothetical world where gun smithing knowledge to build firearm was something proprietary to the police and military. Every once in a while human ingenuity gets the better of a citizen and they start to learn on their own how to fabricate a firearm themselves. Just as they get close, the government swoops in and confiscates all the citizens shop equipment and design plans and schematics, then makes them submit to random inspections to ensure that they do not resume their effort. Sound familiar? The US doesn't want other nations to have nukes for the same reason the police and our government doesn't want citizens to have guns. Without guns, we are easy to keep in line. With guns, they would have to use scorched earth tactics that would likely completely destroy all of the people they would hope to subjugate.

    When Israel began developing their nuclear weapons program, our relationship was very different. Those of us in the nuclear community feverishly sought to end their nuclear weapons program to keep them from having nuclear arms. The Israelis knew that the only way to be taken seriously, and get equal benefit from alliances with the true worlds power brokers was to have the same destructive capability. Without it, they had little bargaining power. With much subterfuge they were able to build a nuke right under the noses of inspectors and ultimate achieved their goal and TA-DA, they are now one of our closest allies.

    Think of the world as the pre-civil war united states, and those without nukes are the slaves and those with nukes are the masters. If you had nukes, would you want your subjects to have the power to rise up and defy your wishes? Slave owners didn't allow their slaves to learn to read and wright for the same reason we, today, don't allow developing nations to have nuclear weapons.
    Last edited by Nevada carrier; 11-30-2010 at 12:08 AM.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Your argument has some validity, but only to the extent that it applies to conventional weapons.

    Weapons of mass destruction are completely different from conventional weapons because of their tremendous destructive power.

    They do not provide good leverage that nuclear powers can use to coerce non-nuclear ones: the devastation that would be wrought by the use of nuclear weapons is so terrible that the threat to use them is not credible, unless the smaller state is doing something that truly represents an "existential threat" to the larger one. That is why our nuclear capabilities, which could easily reduce Iran to a sea of glass, and North Korea to a moonscape, are pretty much useless to deter these countries from doing anything, except bombing other countries with their own weapons of mass destruction.

    The main thing that keeps Israel secure is its overwhelming conventional superiority. I suppose that if these conventional capabilities ever failed, the nuclear option would provide Israel with a deterrent "backstop" because, in that case, Israel would truly be facing an existential threat.

    But that isn't a very likely scenario: Israel would completely spank any of its neighbors in a conventional war. Israel has too many nuclear weapons -- and has invested far too much money in nuclear weapons than can be justified by any significant defensive strategic need.

    The US should be much more critical of Israel's over-development of nuclear weapons. To a great extent, the US has funded Israel's military development, so these diversions of resources from conventional weapons come at US expense. Moreover, such weapons in such numbers are only strategically useful against another signficant nuclear power. If Israel decided for whatever reason to mix it up with one of these powers with nuclear weapons, that would have extremely dangerous global consequences -- leaving aside the unfathomable devastation that such a war would likely cause in Israel, and any state that would be the object of Israel's attack.
    Last edited by The Donkey; 11-30-2010 at 10:25 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Our constitution does not protect other countries or people in other countries.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Our constitution does not protect other countries or people in other countries.
    Of course, you are mostly right, but I am pretty sure that wasn't what cspring was getting at.

    I think he was interested in thinking about whether the principles/philosophy behind the Second Amendment have any application to nuclear weapons issues, and in particular, nuclear proliferation.

    I don't think he is trying to argue that the Second Amendment applies extra-territorially.

    Interestingly though, other provisions of the Constitution DO apply extraterritorially, which is why, for example, a foreign entity can sue a US citizen in a US Federal Court, and be entitled to due process there.

    But that is another story . . . .
    Last edited by The Donkey; 11-30-2010 at 08:34 PM.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Nations don't have rights. People do. Nations have power. We all hope that nations that respect individual rights are the ones with the power. Unfortunately, the thinking that nations and people are essentially equivalent entities leads to the empowerment of nations that don't respect rights. After all, aren't nations, like people, created equal?

    No. People are created equal. Nations are not. Free systems flourish, as well they should. Oppressive systems flounder, as well they should.

    Some really dangerous thinking comes from analogizing nations and people.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Nations don't have rights. People do. Nations have power. We all hope that nations that respect individual rights are the ones with the power. Unfortunately, the thinking that nations and people are essentially equivalent entities leads to the empowerment of nations that don't respect rights. After all, aren't nations, like people, created equal?

    No. People are created equal. Nations are not. Free systems flourish, as well they should. Oppressive systems flounder, as well they should.

    Some really dangerous thinking comes from analogizing nations and people.
    Marxism and the borg? or would that be the same?

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Marxism and the borg? or would that be the same?
    That wasn't where I was headed, but you are most assuredly right.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by cspring View Post
    This is an issue for which I have no clear answer, but I have been wondering if support for the 2nd Amendment, and gun rights in general, has any connection to my opinions about each nation's right to develop a nuclear weapons program. Why should we believe that a nation should not be able to have nukes if we believe that citizens should be able to have guns?
    The vast majority of us do not believe that everyone should have guns, with the two obvious exceptions being convicted felons and the mentally incompetant.

    OK. Since I do not think that North Korea, for example, should have nukes, I might say that it is a rogue nation that has forfeited this right (like a felony convict or a mentally unstable person may not buy a gun).
    Bingo.

    But what about Indonesia? Peru? Mexico? I prefer that we have fewer nukes in the world, but whose to say who may have them? What do you think?
    Small numbers of nukes are an offensive weapon, not a defensive weapon. Handguns can be used for either, but in the hands of a law-abiding citizen, the way most laws are written, when one follows those laws, it's a defensive weapon.

    Large numbers of nukes can be a deterrent, but only a few countries, those of the NPT, have enough weapons for deterrence to be considered as a factor.

    Background:I think, currently, these countries have nuclear arms: U.S., Israel, China, Pakistan, India, France, Russia, UK
    According to this source, it's:

    NPT:
    US
    Russia
    UK
    France
    China

    Non-NPT:
    India
    Pakistan
    N. Korea

    Undeclared:
    Israel

    NPT: Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

    Thus, there are nine countries possessing nuclear weapons.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  10. #10
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    If the United States wants to encourage other countries to not develope nuclear weapons, that's fine. If the US decides to make a big crater to distroy another countries nuclear weapons program, that's fine for me as well. I do believe any country should do what they can to defend themselves. If other countries want to make the US into moon scape, that's their decision. In their minds, that is what must be done to ensure survival. Of course, I will defend from such an attack with all of my ability.

    I don't know if this made any sense, but...

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by DCKilla View Post
    If the United States wants to encourage other countries to not develope nuclear weapons, that's fine. If the US decides to make a big crater to distroy another countries nuclear weapons program, that's fine for me as well. I do believe any country should do what they can to defend themselves. If other countries want to make the US into moon scape, that's their decision. In their minds, that is what must be done to ensure survival. Of course, I will defend from such an attack with all of my ability.

    I don't know if this made any sense, but...
    Well, Killa, I am with you as far as wanting the US to discourage other countries from developing nuclear weapons.

    But I start to lose you when you say that its "fine . . . to make a big crater to destroy another countries' nuclear weapons program." There are lots of countries like that, and those are really big craters. While I can imagine circumstances where the US might choose to do just that, I would not want the US to do so lightly, and if while it might be unavoidable, it certainly would not be "fine."

    I suppose it is factually correct to say that in the nuclear age, it is other countries decision as to whether or not to turn the US into a moonscape:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph...04_674922c.jpg

    but I am not at all comfortable with that, which is why I favor robust deterrence and treaties controlling nuclear weapons.

    Finally, you say, "of course, I will defend from such an attack with all of my ability." How exactly do you suppose that you are going to do that? Are you going to go to US ports, and search shipping containers for suitcase bombs? Are you going to stand on US borders, viligantly keeping an eye out for missles and bombers, like this?

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/library...ss/2178344115/

    Last edited by The Donkey; 12-03-2010 at 10:03 AM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    "of course, I will defend from such an attack with all of my ability." How exactly do you suppose that you are going to do that? Are you going to go to US ports, and search shipping containers for suitcase bombs? Are you going to stand on US borders, viligantly keeping an eye out for missles and bombers, like this?]
    we do have national guard units that basically do just as you suggest. An easy way to defend against rogue nukes is to simply have enough of our own in stock so when we find out who attacked or tried to attack... well we can make many craters.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Coded-Dude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Roseville
    Posts
    317
    Mutually Assured Destruction. its very similar to firearms. Even the playing field and abuses of power will decrease. "Restrict" arms and abuses will continually rise.

    The nuclear community is creating nuclear free zones all over the world. With threat of violence(not reason).
    Last edited by Coded-Dude; 12-03-2010 at 06:58 PM.
    If guns cause crime.....mine must be defective.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by DCKilla View Post
    If the US decides to make a big crater to distroy another countries nuclear weapons program, that's fine for me as well.
    I think we need to make a big crater in N. Korea and Iran...just my .02
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    Israel has too many nuclear weapons -- and has invested far too much money in nuclear weapons than can be justified by any significant defensive strategic need.
    I take it you only own a single-shot .22 pistol for self-defense, and no other firearms, then?
    Last edited by AbNo; 12-05-2010 at 07:00 PM.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by AbNo View Post
    I take it you only own a single-shot .22 pistol for self-defense, and no other firearms, then?
    I own lots of firearms. For home defense: Taurus Mod. 44 chambered with three silverpoints, then 2 .410 shotgun shells with buckshot.

    In case of apolcalypse, I have a vintage M-1 carbine with a high cap. magazine and a S & W Pump 12 ga.

    I do not need 10 model 44s, 10 M-1s, and 10 pump 12 gauges.

    I do not need a 155 mm Howitzer.

    I do not need a tactical nuke.


  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    To paraphrase: You have too many weapons -- and have invested far too much money in weapons than can be justified by any significant defensive need.

    Oh, wait, that's not for me to say.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    To paraphrase: You have too many weapons -- and have invested far too much money in weapons than can be justified by any significant defensive need.

    Oh, wait, that's not for me to say.
    Correct:

    For example, my Ames percussion pistol is not justified by any defensive need.

    Rather, it is justified by my asthetic sensibilities and uncompromising good taste.

    Nuclear weapons have little collectors value.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    Correct:

    For example, my Ames percussion pistol is not justified by any defensive need.

    Rather, it is justified by my asthetic sensibilities and uncompromising good taste.

    Nuclear weapons have little collectors value.
    Inane and fails to address the point made. Not that I expected the post would.

    I made my point (for those who will see it). Moving on.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    My response may not have made the point that Eye wanted to make, but made the point that I wanted to make rather sweetly.

    Catch ya round, Eye.


  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    I own lots of firearms. For home defense: Taurus Mod. 44 chambered with three silverpoints, then 2 .410 shotgun shells with buckshot.

    In case of apolcalypse, I have a vintage M-1 carbine with a high cap. magazine and a S & W Pump 12 ga.

    I do not need 10 model 44s, 10 M-1s, and 10 pump 12 gauges.

    I do not need a 155 mm Howitzer.

    I do not need a tactical nuke.
    Show me a "need clause" in the Second Amendment.

    If you're feeling feisty, tell me who gets to determine what you or I need for personal defense and/or defense of the country.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

  22. #22

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by AbNo View Post
    Show me a "need clause" in the Second Amendment.

    If you're feeling feisty, tell me who gets to determine what you or I need for personal defense and/or defense of the country.
    You mean after all of this time, Abs, you never noticed the "need clause" in the Second Amendment before?

    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, . . . ."

    Dude, make that appointment with the Opthamologist right away.



    So the Constitution is telling us that we NEED a well-regulated militia for defense of the country. The world is a threatening place, requiring free states to arm themselves with a "well regulated" fighting force.

    So far, there is nothing about whether the force "need" be equipped with muskets, but that is certainly implied by the part of the Amendment you and I tend to focus on more ie "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

    But this is a broad constitutional injunction: it is not intended to tell us how many muskets to buy -- or to require the soldiers themselves to provide --for a detachment of militia.

    That is a military logistics question: you need enough for the detachment. Perhaps the number of necessary muskets is less than the total number of members of the militia -- because some of these militia members will be assigned to support functions, but probably more than the total number of infantry fighters in the detatchment, because you have to plan on a certain amount of loss and breakage of weaponry.

    You also need to think about the size of your militia: what is the number of fighters you need to accomplish the military missions of the militia? In planning for this, you need to take into account the more likely scenarios where the militia might be engaged, but also less likely ones, because some of these less likely could have a serious impact on "the security of a free state." You need to think about the fact that it is a dynamic situation, and that your possible opponents may gain information about how many muskets you are buying, and ships you are building. How will they react to that? Are THEY going to be motivated to buy more and better muskets and ships because you -- their possible opponent -- is stocking up? What do you need to do to anticipate that? You need to think about all these things, but also deftly employ Occum's Razor because you do not need to take into account scenarios so bizarre or unlikely as to be absurd, and it is easy to get kind of twisted when you start thinking like this.



    So the founders would have thought about the British, and what they might do, and some of the "savages" who are also mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. They may have thought about the possibility of internal unrest, such as the Whiskey Rebellion. How many muskets will the "Committees of Safety" need for these contingencies? We had better have enough, because otherwise the "security of a free state" might be jeopardized: but at the same time, not too much, because the United States is already having great trouble raising the capital it requires to pay and equip its militia for existing needs.

    If you were to go -- say to John Adams -- and tell him that you thought that the United States should -- in this time of scarse resources -- double its musket purchases to prepare for the contingency of invasions by the Mole People from the Planet Xenon 6, I do not think that you would have gotten a real good response from Mr. Adams. Not so much.

    Planning the number of nuclear weapons you may need for the possibility of a nuclear war is in many ways similar to this: you need to think of contingencies, scenarios, and possible targets. You actually may decide that you need more weapons than the number of likely targets you might hit in a war, because these weapons are also subject to loss and breakage. But you do not need too many, because in that case, the "extras" are wasted on things like "making the rubble bounce." You also need to think about your infrastructure: how many of these awful things can you actually support in an adequate state of readiness to address the threats you face. You need to think of resources: these things are very expensive to build, operate, maintain, and properly secure. You need to think of "arms race stability" What are your likely opponents going to think if you start building these things like there is no tomorrow? Are they going to want to build them too? Are they going to start speculating that maybe there really is no tomorrow? What effect is that unfortunate development likely to have on you?

    I really do not think that the Second Amendment provides adequate answers to these questions. At best, it is a philosophical statement suggesting that you need enough nuclear weapons to provide for "the security of a free state." Most modern states regard zero as enough for themselves. I am not sure that either the United States or Israel will ever be in that enviable position. But I DO think that both of these states can get by with less -- and considerably less if the right things happen in diplomacy and on the ground.


  23. #23
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    very nice,,,

    i have more guns than i can shoot!
    none are nuke.
    in a siege on my house, i would be dead before i ran out of ammo!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396
    If I lived in Mexico, I would want my country to have nuclear weapons, just like I want to have firearms in my home for me and my family knowing others out there are armed with them as well. I also think that the leaders of Iran would be traitorous to their own people to give up on their quest to obtain nuclear weapons. The Iranians deserve a means of self defense as much as anyone else in this world. In regards to firearms, I also believe that any lucid adult who has shown no propensity to commit violent crime should be allowed to own and possess firearms, including convicted drug dealers, forgers, embezzelers and other felons who were convicted of crimes that involved no violence.

    In my own perfect world, if the U.S. were the only country to have nuclear weapons, I would rather it stay that way just like I would rather my own family and group be the only ones in our society to own and possess firearms. Of course, neither of those things are going to happen and I don't fault any entity for wanting to arm themselves as much as possible for their own defense if they wish.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley, Virginia
    Posts
    3,806
    Quote Originally Posted by The Donkey View Post
    You mean after all of this time, Abs, you never noticed the "need clause" in the Second Amendment before?

    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, . . . ."

    Dude, make that appointment with the Opthamologist right away.
    Well, I walked right into that one.

    I should have known I can't simply rely on the intelligence of some posters, and that leaving an out, as it were, will allow one of the usual suspects to derail the point I was trying to make.

    I'm not in the mood to deal with this this morning, as I've seen enough of this chicanery from other people today, and I'll not perpetuate it.
    Last edited by AbNo; 12-08-2010 at 03:03 AM.
    Why open carry? Because 1911 > 911.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •