Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Doesn’t it look like Uncle Sam pulled a fast one on the world?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (26834points) September 24th, 2014

Disclaimer This is not about Obama, nor is it Obama bashing. This question is not about Pres. Obama’s policy or his officiating, or that of the party of Twiddle Dee, or Twiddle Dumb, but about US hypocrisy in government.
For some time now, the US has been touting corralling loose nukes and reducing stockpiles, (while playing Nuke Czar as to who or who cannot have or produce them.). Now having convinced several nations (usually ones not on the boot lackey list) to give up their nukes or abandon trying the quest to get them, the US now looks like it is replenishing it’s supply so it will be one of the only nations with fresh nukes and will have vastly more than everyone else. It looks like a great feat of bamboozling the world, get them to give up their nukes acting like you are too, then when most or all of theirs are gone, rebuild yours knowing they can’t (because they had left over Soviet stock,) or do not possess the ability to reproduce them at the speed Uncle Sam can. Seems like Uncle Sam was lying all that time or being less then genuine, doesn’t it? How can they spin the hypocrisy out of that? If it was an old factory maybe they would have some wiggle room, but a brand spanking new factory?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

17 Answers

KNOWITALL's avatar

SEems shady to me. Or very smart.

talljasperman's avatar

We need some nukes to fend off aliens and meteors.

zenvelo's avatar

@talljasperman Whose we, Canada buddy?

Well we haven’t gotten anybody to give them up completely, we’ve just gotten them to agree to reducing the number, especially so that the crazier former Soviet client states won’t do something really crazy, like sell them to ISIS.

talljasperman's avatar

@zenvelo Canada is a part of NORAD , so it is we.

jerv's avatar

It’s the American way.

flutherother's avatar

It is a little hypocritical but the US wants these weapons strictly for defensive purposes. The US will always abide by international laws and would never attack another sovereign country so there is nothing to worry about.

ucme's avatar

The only thing that old timer can pull is a muscle, bless.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Seems like we are doing the same kind of thing with oil. Sit on ours while we use everyone elses up.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@flutherother There is no way to use a nuclear weapon defensively.

ninjacolin's avatar

How many nukes does a country need exactly?

Jaxk's avatar

If you have Nukes, they should be functional. Unfortunately, that genie is out of the bottle. We can’t put it back. The modernization in no way means we can’t still reduce the arsenal. It only means the arsenal we have is fresh and functional. Other than the cost, it would seem to be an easy decision. I see no hypocrisy here.

The ideas of mutually Assured Destruction has been around throughout the Cold War. If our Nukes are known to be old and deteriorated, the whole doctrine falls apart.

Darth_Algar's avatar

I fail to see the issue here. We’ve signed treaties limiting our stockpile to certain numbers, but, as far as I’m aware, we’ve never signed any treaty regulating the age, technological state or condition of that stockpile.

flutherother's avatar

@dappled_leaves I agree wholeheartedly but every country that has them say they are for defence and the countries that have them need them the least.

Darth_Algar's avatar

There may be no way to use a nuclear weapon defensively, but it could be argued that they do serve a defensive purpose. No one’s going to fuck too much with a nuclear-armed country.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@flutherother The US will always abide by international laws and would never attack another sovereign country so there is nothing to worry about.
<cough, cough> Iraq <cough, cough> I guess if you are lied to, it is OK to attack a sovereign nation to keep them from getting defensive nukes because Uncle Sam knows best who will use them and how.

@Darth_Algar There may be no way to use a nuclear weapon defensively, but it could be argued that they do serve a defensive purpose. No one’s going to fuck too much with a nuclear-armed country.
Then to expect a nation that doesn’t possess a military chalk full of aircraft carrier battle groups, fleets or Raptor jets, drones, A1 Abram tanks, etc. from trying to get them some defensive nukes, is a lunacy at best.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ <clutching heart> Something we agree on, I know the massive coronary is on the way, I have lived to see it all now ~~~

Wonder if there are bets in Vegas as to how many more times it will happen before the year ends?

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther