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

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.

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.

Our constitution does not protect other countries or people in other countries.

Daylen said:

Our constitution does not protect other countries or people in other countries.

Click to expand...

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 . . . .

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Marxism and the borg? or would that be the same?

Daylen said:

Marxism and the borg? or would that be the same?

Click to expand...

That wasn't where I was headed, but you are most assuredly right.

cspring said:

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?

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

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...

DCKilla said:

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...

Click to expand...

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/multimedia/archive/00674/washington404_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_of_congress/2178344115/

The Donkey said:

"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?]

Click to expand...

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.

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).

DCKilla said:

If the US decides to make a big crater to distroy another countries nuclear weapons program, that's fine for me as well.

Click to expand...

I think we need to make a big crater in N. Korea and Iran...just my .02

The Donkey said:

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.

Click to expand...

I take it you only own a single-shot .22 pistol for self-defense, and no other firearms, then?

AbNo said:

I take it you only own a single-shot .22 pistol for self-defense, and no other firearms, then?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

eye95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

The Donkey said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.