North Korea to be punished for nukes: Who decides punishment?

North Korea has tested another nuclear weapon – this one seemingly more effective than the first – and the rest of the world cries for punishment.

Well, maybe not the whole world. The countries crying most loudly for sanctions on North Korea are the countries that already have nuclear weapons. If the United Nations called for sanctions on China, France, the United States, or Great Britain, each would respond arrogantly that nuclear weapons were their sovereign right, and that no amount of sanctions (never going to happen, but play along anyway) will force [insert country with nukes here] to give up needed tools for defense.

So my question is what gives the United States and others the sovereign right to nuclear weapons, but denies that right to other sovereign nations?

I don't think nuclear weapons are a good idea no matter which country has them, but for states that have them to sanction states that develop them seems more than a little self-serving. The argument against "rogue" states such as North Korea getting nuclear weapons is that the more nukes that exist, the better the chance they will be used. GOOD POINT!

Why then, don't the United States and other nuclear powers get rid of their nukes?

Mutually assured destruction? There's got to be a better way.

Smells like hypocrisy to me.

More later,
Russ

American arrogance shows in New York Times headline

This headline appeared in the email "Today's Headlines" from the New York Times today.

Pakistani Sets Emergency Rule, Defying the U.S.

The question in my mind is: If Pakistan is a sovereign nation, isn't any action its government takes based on its own authority? And if that's true, how can any action they take be "defying the U.S."?

The New York Times seems to have bought in to the idea that the United States is the boss of all other countries in the world. Poor headline writing. Shame on the Times.

More later,
Russ