I have been reading, and listening on topic of nuclear weapons. From doing that I can state that people believe it is America's job to prevent certain people in having Nuclear Weapons, and they use this belief as way reason going into war to prevent them from using it. To me this is an impossible task for any nation, and that includes America to do. It's impossible, because no nation can read the minds of individuals. Their beliefs of certain countries are based upon assumption, that they believe are facts.
Now I do belief there groups, if not countries that want to hurt other countries, and best way to prevent that is through national security. That is protecting their borders, and not invading in other countries. These countries that are invaded from others that do not have probable cause does have a right protect themselves, so that gives them the right to bear nuclear arms. Now what is wrong with topic of nuclear weapons is for other countries to prevent others from having them, because stopping crime that has not been committed will create more long term problems that are not necessary. Here is a made up scenario that could happen to be an example.
Let's say I have a neighbor that acts really crazy towards me and others, but has not done any physical harm towards anyone. That neighbor decides one day to exercise his constitution right by buying a gun, and it not being charged with anything make it easy for it to buy a gun. I some how find this out, and assume that it will harm me. Based upon that assumption I go over its house to attempt to murder it, cause I assume that it will harm men. Is that a right response, and do you think a jury would justify me for doing that? They probably will not, because I do not have probable cause. Probable cause is based upon proven evidence, and not assumption. What my action did was murder an innocent person, but do you think a judge should not punish me for committing a crime without probable cause? What my assumption did was create a big problem, and for it to end a judge would have to sentence me according to the law. If the judge did not do that by letting me go, than my assumption would create a bigger problem. That problem could result in more crime with another murder, by someone else wanting to murder me for not feeling safe. They would respond to murdering me for the same reason that I assume on, but that person would have probable cause on me for murdering someone else.
Now that's a wrong way to handle someone for buying a gun, and a better way for me to handle that scenario is to not worry about it by leaving that person alone. I should think maybe that person buying a gun is that it wants to protect itself, and it is his right. The only way I could know if that person attempted to harm me is if he actually did it, than I would have probable cause to take action in defending myself.
In that scenario that crazy neighbor could represent Iran, and I could be a country that prevents them from buying a gun that represents a nuclear weapon. Only real way to prevent a country from buying a nuclear weapon is not making them, and no country on earth will do that. Next best way for preventing countries from using nuclear weapons is to leave them alone, and not provoke them into using them by invading their country on assumption. For a country to invade another one they would need probable cause, and not having it will give that invaded country a right to defend itself.
Now there is logic for a country to invade another country without probable cause, and that is the invading country knows that it needs to strong national defense for retaliation from that country it is invading. If a country that invades without strong defense could pay dearly for their action from a counteract from the country they invaded, and maybe that is why countries like Iran have not fire their nuclear weapons. By using logic it could maybe let us see that Iran uses nuclear weapons to defend itself just like Americans that buy guns to defend themselves. Also it could let us see that Iran uses verbal threats the same way a person would when another invade its property without invitation.
I believe that when countries stop instigating wars on assumptions, than there will be less threats of countries with nuclear weapons, and less nuclear weapons circulating around. Here's another made up scenario that could happen, but is a good analysis to show how less nuclear weapons could be circulating around. Let's say someone, or a group of people decide to sell guns legally, because they feel selling them would make good money for them. So they end up opening a gun shop, but town they are in does not buy them cause they do not have enough money. So gun shop tries to lower the prices of their guns without losing profit, but still no one buys money. Now they have to sell guns to make money, and no one not buying guns creates alternate scenarios in this example. One alternate scenario would be go to another town, and maybe pick one with a high crime rate to help them sell guns to make profit. Another scenario is to sell something else that could make profit, because there is not enough crime for people to want to buy guns. Another scenario would be alter the way the sell guns like doing it at gun shows, instead at stores, or sell specific ones that people want. Now having less crime would decrease gun from circulating in certain markets, but for guns to be in demand than crime rate would need to be high. Now do you think some gun sellers that are greedy would try to instigate crime to make lots of profit? Now having less crime rate could decrease the sells of some, if not most markets, and could that idea be applied for nuclear weapons on the free market?
Again let's use logic to see if that statement of decrease crime could slow gun sales be applied to sellers, and buyers of nuclear weapons. A person, or group of people do go in the nuclear arm business the same reason another would go into selling any other type of weapon, and that is to make money. They want to find buyers either to sell their products increase their production if there's a demand to make high profits, or they will decrease their production if demand is less. If they increase production during less demand, than they could lead to bankruptcy. So with less instigated war could lead to less demand, and that could decrease nuclear arms being circulated for companies that make them to avoid not making profit. Now there is evidence that companies that make weapons make lots of money, and could that be cause of countries instigating war through false flags operations?
Now I am not against companies making nuclear weapons, because like 2nd amendment I think countries should do all they can to protect themselves. To delay nuclear war is not going to be done through invading countries, but leaving them alone. If war is not instigated, than that may not be a reason for them to buy weapons, and if their not buying weapons than that would slow nuclear weapons from being circulated.
No comments:
Post a Comment