just laur (echafaud) wrote in thequestionclub,
just laur

  • Mood:
  • Music:


(these are not rhetorical[obviously, it's tqc])

1. why is it that global nuclear policy is allowed to be decided by such subjective means? so, the west thinks mahmoud ahmadinejad and kim jong il are crazy/unstable/"evil" so they're not allowed to have nuclear weapons, but since the leaders of the us/uk/israel(presumably)/france/china/russia are "ok" then we're all allowed to have them?

i just want to know, in all seriousness, what the rationale behind this is. should the western nations set a precedent? i certainly don't WANT ahmadinejad and kim jong il to have nukes (cause, i'll be honest, i think they're crazies, too), but how can we tell them that they can't have them when we do, simply based on the subjective quality of their risk to the rest of the planet? couldn't one argue that the us and its allied forces have been proven to be an active aggressive force and, therefore, should not have nukes?

2. why is it that there's a "wet foot-dry foot" policy (aka: if cubans make it to the us and set foot on solid ground, they can stay. if they're caught at sea, they have to go back) with cuba, but not with other countries which have lots of illegal immigration to the us?
  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded