I understand what you’re saying and agree on the dangers, but on what grounds does one country or a group of countries tell another sovereign nation what defensive or offensive weapons it can have or sell?
Under the Bush doctrine, our policy was one of preemption even if the danger was not imminent. There are limits to what we can do. We could not disarm the Soviets or the Chinese for very real reasons. It was beyond our capability to do so without suffering massive destruction ourselves. I believe we can have a policy of differentiation that deals differently with NK and Russia. Nuclear proliferation represents a significant danger to us and our allies. Rogue regimes like NK and Iran will destabilize their regions and threaten our national interests with their nuclear weapons.
Your logic is similar to that used by Obama and his left wing cronies. Obama says the US should not try to impose its political ideas on other countries. I gather we should remain silent about human rights and freedom and liberty if we are not directly involved. I disagree. Here is what another Dem, JFK, said in his inaugural address in 1961:
The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge—and more.
I was in Poland during martial law. I can tell you firsthand how powerfully Reagan and the Pope influenced the Polish opposition, Solidarnosc'. As the world's lone superpower, we still have the ability to influence the world's future and outcomes. That ability is declining as our country plunges into debt fueled by increasing entitlement programs and socialism that will force us to choose between guns and butter. And no doubt, we will choose butter.
“I understand what you’re saying and agree on the dangers, but on what grounds does one country or a group of countries tell another sovereign nation what defensive or offensive weapons it can have or sell?”
principles of freedom and morality
I must respectfully disagree.
North Korea is not a “sovereign nation.” True sovereignty requires legitimacy, and the government of North Korea is not legitimate. Legitimate governments govern by the consent of the governed and respect the implicit human rights of those they govern, at least to some degree. North Korea does neither - it is a rogue state that exists purely as a result of its ability to hold the North Korean populace hostage by force.
The same was true for Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime and the same is true for the Iranian ayatollahs. Illegitimate regimes have no legitimacy and thus can NEVER be considered sovereign. When they act in ways which potentially infringe on truly legitimate and sovereign nations, those nations have a right to preemptively step in and end it before real damage is done. We have a right to step in and prevent a bully who has threatened to shoot our friends from even loading his gun.
Appeasing dictators and affording them the rights of sovereign nations has never worked and has always led to unnecessary bloodshed.