Nukes and Copyrights

[Crow]

Does America have the right to declare unto another country "You will not produce nuclear weapons, or else."?

Edited March 18, 2005 by Crow

[Bryan]

Does America have the right to declare unto another country "You will not produce nuclear weapons, or else."?

The title of the thread is "Nukes and Copyrights". Is your question pertaining to copyrights, implying that the United States somehow has a "copyright" on nuclear weapons? Or is it a national defense question?

[JMeganSnow]

Does America have the right to declare unto another country "You will not produce nuclear weapons, or else."?

Does the government have the right to put violent criminals in jail (prevent then from exercising their liberty)? Same operative principle.

[EC]

Does America have the right to declare unto another country "You will not produce nuclear weapons, or else."?

A better question is why wouldn't America have this right?

[DavidOdden]

Does America have the right to declare unto another country "You will not produce nuclear weapons, or else."?

You have to name names. If we're talking about the UK, Japan or Norway, for example, then the answer is clearly no. If you mean North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Burma, or France, then it's not just a right, it's a moral obligation. We certainly shirked our duty when it came to Pakistan.

[EC]

You have to name names. If we're talking about the UK, Japan or Norway, for example, then the answer is clearly no. If you mean North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Burma, or France, then it's not just a right, it's a moral obligation. We certainly shirked our duty when it came to Pakistan.

The UK and Norway are just as socialist and evil as France so I see no reason why shouldn't be able to dictate policy in our interest to them also. Japan is somewhat of a different issue, they are bit hard to define. But clearly the U.s. is a free-er and objectively better country than Japan also, so we should also be able to morally dictate policy to them if it's in our interest. In other words, no nation is completely soverien, unless it is completely free and rational. A pure Objectivist society would be able to morally dictate policy to the present American incarnation to be consistent.

[HaloNoble6]

In the interest of brevity and conciseness, please keep quotes and nested quotes to a minimum; remember to use quotes only if it absolutely necessary, i.e. only if it wouldn't be clear from the context of the thread what/who you're responding to in particular.

[punk]

If the US has a right to prevent another sovereign nation from acquiring nuclear weapons, the question still remains where it gets that right from.

If any sovereign nation has the right to develop and possess nuclear weapons, then all sovereign nations have that right.

In international law, all sovereign nations are considered legally equals. If any nation has a right to prevent any other nation from acquiring nuclear weapons, then every single sovereign nation has the right to prevent any other sovereign nation from acquiring nuclear weapons.

This is entirely different from controlling criminals within a nation's borders. All sovereign nations are recognized to have the right to define and control criminal behavior within its borders. No nation has a right to control criminal behavior within another nation's borders. A sovereign government may grant a foreign nation the ability to act within its borders, but this is a priveledge granted by a government, and not a right.

Rights are created in law. If you want to claim the US has rights other nations do not, then you'd need to show some laws to back your view up.

[dondigitalia]

Punk -

Rights are not created in law, they are the conditions necessary for man's survival. Laws are created to protect rights. Any laws which do not serve this function are improper and should not be laws.

As far as the rights of a nation: A nation's rights are nothing more than the sum total of the rights of it's citizens. Therefore, a sovreign nation has rights only insofar as it recognizes individual rights.

Many laws exist, including some here in America, which directly contradict individual rights. Such laws are unjust and should be eradicated. Your claim that "rights are created in law" is false. If, in fact, rights were "created in law," no law could be in contradiction with individual rights. Are you suggesting that this is the case?

[DavidOdden]

If any sovereign nation has the right to develop and possess nuclear weapons, then all sovereign nations have that right.

A true formal deduction, but it's based on the false premise that any soverign nation has the right to develop or have nukes.

In international law, all sovereign nations are considered legally equals.

Yes, but are you offering that as an argument, or a condemnation of so-called international law? The law should not treat unequals as equals -- it should not presume the same rights hold of a criminal government as a law-abiding nation.

If any nation has a right to prevent any other nation from acquiring nuclear weapons, then every single sovereign nation has the right to prevent any other sovereign nation from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Another impeccable formal deduction, but one based on a false premise, so what next?

This is entirely different from controlling criminals within a nation's borders.

Surely you don't really believe that the points of comparison between criminal nations and criminal individuals are totally and absolutely null. The fact that there is some difference does not mean that there is nothing but difference.

All sovereign nations are recognized to have the right to define and control criminal behavior within its borders.

Who recognises such rights? If you're claiming that someone out there recognises a "right" of a nation to do whatever it want within its borders, such as exterminating all of the Jews, Kurds or Armenians, then technically you're correct, but that does not make it right.

  No nation has a right to control criminal behavior within another nation's borders.  A sovereign government may grant a foreign nation the ability to act within its borders, but this is a priveledge granted by a government, and not a right.

That would be true if you were speaking of a basically civilized government that more or less acted to protect the rights of its citizens. Beyond that, no nation can claim a right to do what it wants.

Rights are created in law.

Oh, ugh! That's just so false. Rights are recognised and, at least theoretically, protected by law. Rights exist independent of the official granting of the right by the state.

If you want to claim the US has rights other nations do not, then you'd need to show some laws to back your view up.

Since there is no world government and no mechanism for establishing trans-national law (and therefore no actually existing trans-national law), that obviously cannot be done. The source of the US's right to stop aggressor nations from building nukes is exactly the same as the common-law source for the right to self-defense against an attack, even when no statutory restriction is in place. Also, you've got another one of those impeccable and irrelevant formal deductions going on there. All other nations have the right (and responsibility) to demand that criminal nations stop arming themselves to the teeth so that they can attack us. Obviously, the criminal nations themselves will not d what they should do.

[EC]

The whole concept of "international rights" is invalid, punk. And it is absolutely false that all nations are all equal or all have some right to exist. There is a hierarchy among nations such that the objectively better nations are the ones that more properly respect individual rights. And a nation higher up in that hierarchy can properly dictate policy or eliminate the illegitiment government of nations lower in the hierarchy of freedom whenever it deems it to be in its self-interest.

[JMeganSnow]

In fact, since the sovereignity of a nation is derived from the extent that it protects the rights of its citizens, nations that violate the rights of their citizens are not sovereign. Anyone can invade a totalitarian country at any time BY RIGHT, as long as their purpose is not to set up another totalitarian government. Governments don't have rights; only individuals have rights. If violent individuals can be deprived of their rights, violent GROUPS of individuals can be deprived of their rights. As I said, same operative principle.

[punk]

On the contrary, the whole concept of "sovereign nation" is a working out of the Treaty of Westphalia which ended the Thirty Years War. This treaty is the basis of international relations in the old European international system which has since been spread to the entire world

It is really simple.

1. A goverment has the right to do what it will within its own domains without foreign interference

2. All governments are of equal legal status to each other (this is irrelevant as to which is most militarily powerful). This legal status leads to laws of war.

This is a simple and objective status which can serve as a foundation for law.

To create some inobjective and blurry standard that *a nation has a right to interfere in the internal affairs in another nation in as much as the first nation's internal laws are better than the second nation's* is to repudiate the rule of law.

I didn't know objectivists favored such anarchy.

By analogy I suppose you'd have to say that if I run my household better than my neighbor does his, then I have the right to take over his house and property and run it for him. That is anarchy.

[punk]

A true formal deduction, but it's based on the false premise that any soverign nation has the right to develop or have nukes.Yes, but are you offering that as an argument, or a condemnation of so-called international law? The law should not treat unequals as equals -- it should not presume the same rights hold of a criminal government as a law-abiding nation.Another impeccable formal deduction, but one based on a false premise, so what next?Surely you don't really believe that the points of comparison between criminal nations and criminal individuals are totally and absolutely null. The fact that there is some difference does not mean that there is nothing but difference.Who recognises such rights? If you're claiming that someone out there recognises a "right" of a nation to do whatever it want within its borders, such as exterminating all of the Jews, Kurds or Armenians, then technically you're correct, but that does not make it right.That would be true if you were speaking of a basically civilized government that more or less acted to protect the rights of its citizens. Beyond that, no nation can claim a right to do what it wants.Oh, ugh! That's just so false. Rights are recognised and, at least theoretically, protected by law. Rights exist independent of the official granting of the right by the state.Since there is no world government and no mechanism for establishing trans-national law (and therefore no actually existing trans-national law), that obviously cannot be done. The source of the US's right to stop aggressor nations from building nukes is exactly the same as the common-law source for the right to self-defense against an attack, even when no statutory restriction is in place. Also, you've got another one of those impeccable and irrelevant formal deductions going on there. All other nations have the right (and responsibility) to demand that criminal nations stop arming themselves to the teeth so that they can attack us. Obviously, the criminal nations themselves will not d what they should do.

There is a system of international treaty law going back to the Treaty of Westphalia that has created a system of international law recognized by all sovereign nations as defining their rights and responsibilities with respect to each other. Under this system of laws, all sovereign nations are de jure equals. They of course are not de facto equals, but then I and Jet Li are de jure equals even though de facto he could probably take me in any hand to hand fight.

Oh and one other thing, according to Article VI of the US Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

So the US is violating its own laws when it acts in violation of treaties it is a party to. Since the US would have to act illegally *according to its own laws* to prevent sovereign nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, then it loses any moral authority it might have had.

Edited March 18, 2005 by punk

[DavidOdden]

There is a system of international treaty law going back to the Treaty of Westphalia that has created a system of international law recognized by all sovereign nations as defining their rights and responsibilities with respect to each other.

I think you're confusing actual law with pretend law. I don't deny that many countries look upon multinational monstrosities such as the UN as in some sense "setting down the law", but these are not valid sets of laws. The moral foundation of the Treaty of Westphalia is the Christian religion (excluding the orthodox variants, at that), and it is a mutual agreement by the warring states. It is true that there are valid multinational agreements, e.g. the "Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction" (Paris 1993), which has been signed and ratified by a number of nations including the US, not to mention Iran (but excluding Iraq and North Korea, among others). Between nations who have such an agreed-upon commitment, such a law is valid. But there is no objective, valid, generic "international law" binding all nations. A system of law which treate criminals and law-abiders identically is necessarily invalid -- it is simply not a system of law.

So the US is violating its own laws when it acts in violation of treaties it is a party to. Since the US would have to act illegally *according to its own laws* to prevent sovereign nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, then it loses any moral authority it might have had.

Explain what that law is. Have we passed into law some treaty that says that we will never use force to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons? Do you have a citation for this law? I'm always up for a good surprise.

[AisA]

So the US is violating its own laws when it acts in violation of treaties it is a party to.  Since the US would have to act illegally *according to its own laws* to prevent sovereign nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, then it loses any moral authority it might have had.

You have it backwards. The law does not create, dictate or trump morality. Morality, based on the principle of individual rights and the protection thereof, is the source of all proper law and trumps any improper laws.

The proper function of government is to protect the individual rights of its citizens by using retaliatory force against domestic criminals and international threats. This is the source of its only legitimate moral authority. Any law that is inconsistent with this authority is an improper law and cannot be used to argue against that authority.

For example, if the U.S. government passed a law that required all citizens to serve in the military, this would not give it the moral authority to enforce said law. That law would be improper and immoral.

Therefore, if the U.S. has to break one of its own laws in order to eliminate a threat to the individual rights of its citizens, it may properly do so because of its moral authority, any improper laws to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Iakeo]

...Therefore, if the U.S. has to break one of its own laws in order to eliminate a threat to the individual rights of its citizens, it may properly do so because of its moral authority, any improper laws to the contrary notwithstanding.

Which is reality's wonderful way of pointing us at what needs to be changed within

our laws and customs. This eliminates nearly all of the irrational flailing about that

characterizes those who would "improve society" (do gooders) who possess no

moral compass.

This is the essence of what to look for and how to act to improve the state of our

society. Reality gives us the cues. We merely need to heed them and act.

-Iakeo

[Crow]

Then America would be morally in the right if it were to blast France into oblivion?

[DavidOdden]

Then America would be morally in the right if it were to blast France into oblivion?

I was kidding about the cheese-eating surrender monkeys, and we especially should leave le Midi intact. Let's substitute North Korea, though, because it poses a complex (but soluable) moral problem. We have no moral obligation at all to the dictators of North Korea, and we have no moral obligation to any innocent stranger other than the obligation to assume innocence, until confronted with counterevidence. It is obvious that most North Koreans do not support the regime, and on the face of it the typical North Korean has wronged no one. The US has two specific interests in terms of North Korea. First, it threatens us, and secondly it is the worst violator of human rights on the planet. These are related facts.

Moral evaluation is evaluation of choices, so let's enumerate choices. One would be to ignore North Korea, the other would be to destroy the current regime. Obviously, the moral choice is the latter. Now we must decide how to eliminate that regime: one way would be to carpet-bomb the entire northern half of the peninsula, eliminating all life, the other would be something less severe, preserving as much as possible the life of innocents trapped in North Korea. The latter is the moral choice, to the extent that it is indeed consistent with eliminating the dictatorship and also does not shift the loss of innocent lives to elsewhere. On that note, it would be wrong to send US troops into North Korea for a war of liberation.

As a concrete proposal, one good choice would be to obliterate Pyongyang, eliminate all known military bases and nuclear production facilities, and sever the rail lines. While some innocents would die in the process, the moral responsibility for the deaths lies with the dictators who have presented the civilized world with the ultimatum "Myriads will die -- you may chose who dies, when and how -- but they must die".

[AisA]

I agree with David's analysis. We can destroy a threat such as North Korea with air power alone. We should reject the notion that has led to the prolonged, exhausting campaign in Iraq: the notion that, "if you break it, you have to fix it".

If we wreak sufficient destruction to their military, government, economic and transportation infrastructure, it will not matter what happens in the aftermath. They will not be a threat for many years to come.

We can do this at a fraction of the cost of an Iraq-style invasion and with little or no loss of American life.

Should NK become a threat again in the future, we can repeat the destruction.

[Al Kufr]

If we wreak sufficient destruction to their military, government, economic and transportation infrastructure, it will not matter what happens in the aftermath.  They will not be a threat for many years to come.

We can do this at a fraction of the cost of an Iraq-style invasion and with little or no loss of American life.

Another question we should answer is, if we attack N.Korea, what will China do?

We can go in and destroy the N.Korean government and leave, but then China could enter and take N.Korea over. China wants to invade Taiwan, what makes us think the wont invade N.Korea? They have done it before.

The best policy with N.Korea is to isolate is as much as possible, and also isolate the people who don't want to isolate N.Korea.

[AisA]

Another question we should answer is, if we attack N.Korea, what will China do?

We can go in and destroy the N.Korean government and leave, but  then China could enter and take N.Korea over. China  wants to invade Taiwan, what makes us think the wont invade N.Korea? They have  done it before.

The Chinese came to the aid of North Korea during the Korean War, after McArthur pushed the NK army back across the border and started advancing into North Korea. Other than this, have they actually invaded North Korea at any other time?

Why would they want to invade N.K. and assume the problems of 20+ million starving peasants?

Would it really matter if they did invade North Korea?

The best policy with N.Korea is to isolate is as much as possible, and also isolate the people who don't want to isolate N.Korea.

The problem I have with this is the possibility of N.K. selling nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems to terrorists or nations like Iran. The longer we allow them to exist, the more desperate their situation becomes and the more likely they are to export weapons technology.

Can you elaborate on how isolation would address these problems?

[DavidOdden]

Another question we should answer is, if we attack N.Korea, what will China do?

My guess is, not much. They have no serious interest in North Korea, and plenty of interest in the US. With Taiwan there is a serious face issue, but there is no such issue with Korea.

The best policy with N.Korea is to isolate is as much as possible, and also isolate the people who don't want to isolate N.Korea.

North Korea is isolated and has been for 50 years, and nothing good has come of that. The only stronger thing we could do is drop nukes on Germany and South Korea when they try to send aid to North Korea the next time they have a major famine. But even that will have no effect on the North Korean dictatorship.

[Al Kufr]

The Chinese came to the aid of North Korea during the Korean War, after McArthur pushed the NK army back across the border and started advancing into North Korea.   Other than this, have they actually invaded North Korea at any other time?

Why would they want to invade N.K. and assume the problems of 20+ million starving peasants? 

Would it really matter if they did invade North Korea?

If we attack N.Korea a huge power vacuum would be created, don't you think China would be at least "kind of" interested in who comes out on top?

They could also get involved to showcase Chinese military power. They would show that China could do what the U.S. is doing in Iraq now;and that is, create a new government in a foreign country. That's a big propaganda tool, and less costly then an invasion of Taiwan.

The problem I have with this is the possibility of N.K. selling nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems to terrorists or nations like Iran.  The longer we allow them to exist, the more desperate their situation becomes and the more likely they are to export weapons technology.

Can you elaborate on how isolation would address these problems?

The same way it would have addressed the problem with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But after further consideration I think that this option should have been done a long time ago, it may be too late now.

Edited March 20, 2005 by Al Kufr

[Iakeo]

If we attack N.Korea a huge power vacuum would be created, don't you think China would be at least "kind of" interested in who comes out on top?

"Who comes out on top"..?!

If they want to help the starving peasants, let them. That huge drain on China

would be welcome by China's competitors, especially if the drain is taken on

voluntarily. If they want to institute a government based on their form of

government, they're more the welcome to try. That would be the equivalent of

annexing the country, because their form of government is not "transportable". It

is not capitalism, which is the only successful thing that is transportable as a

societal principle. Tyrany is also a transportable principle, but it is never a

successful one.

And they would simply be replacing one cult-of-personality (Kimism) with another

(Maoism). Why would we care if they did this?

They would show that China could do what the U.S. is doing in Iraq now;and that is, create a new government in a foreign country.

They've already created a "new government" in Tibet. Once again, why would we

care if they do this?

{{Re "isolation" as a tactic}} The same way it would have addressed the problem with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

So called "isolation" does not work because it's not actually isolation. It's

placation. And placating evil simply furthers evil's purpose.

As two cases in point, look at Iraq pre-invasion (after the "sanctions"), and North

Korea now.

"Isolation" as you mean it, and has been practiced, is meaningless.

-Iakeo

Edited March 20, 2005 by Iakeo