…no matter what our nutty generals might say. That’s China’s new talking point now that General Zhu created an uproar with his talk of a nuclear first strike over Taiwan.
China will not use nuclear weapons first in a military conflict, the foreign minister said Thursday as he tried to quell an uproar over a general’s remark that Beijing might use atomic bombs against U.S. forces in a conflict over Taiwan.
ADVERTISEMENTForeign Minister Li Zhaoxing said China “will not first use nuclear weapons at any time and under any condition,” according to the official Xinhua News Agency. Li said China has embraced that stance since it developed nuclear weapons in 1964, and it “will not be changed in the future.”
Li made the comments to a group of academics from the United States, Japan and China, Xinhua said.
Beijing has been trying to reassure the United States and its Asian neighbors since Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu, a dean at China’s National Defense University, told foreign reporters last week that Beijing might use nuclear weapons if U.S. forces attacked China in a conflict over Taiwan.
Such poor timing. Right when the neocons (and plenty of Dems) are trying to milk “the China threat” for every drop of emotional theater they can, Zhu plays right into their hands and give us a reason to consider the Chinese military a clear and present danger. Hu is gnashing his teeth right now, I’m sure.
1
By pete
That is a sensible response, but my question is why does China need nukes? What other country wants to try to take over China. What a mess it would have to try to govern an unrulely population such as the 1.3 billion or so Chinese. hehe
July 21, 2005 @ 8:35 pm | Comment
2
By richard
It’s an interesting question. Who should decide who can and cannot have nukes? If Iran wants them, why can’t they have them? These are rhetorical questions, and it’s an issue I’ve tried to grapple with. I don’t want Iran, for example, to have nukes, but my logical mind asks, why shouldn;t they? I can come up with answers, like they’re crazy, but who’s the judge and what are the criteria for deciding?
July 21, 2005 @ 8:41 pm | Comment
3
By JFS
My own view is that Iran and any other country has the full right to have nuclear weapons. That right is based on their right to defend themselves.
having said that, I fully believe the United States has a right to deny any state (where they can) the possession of nuclear weapons, that right is based on America’s right to defend itself.
So there are two right is conflict with one another, and neither right outranks the other. Consequently, a solution needs to be had. One party can renounce its right (which is what the USA is doing in regards to India), or they can negotiate some settlement (which is what Europe is attempting to do with Iran and the six party talks are attempting to do with Korea), or hostilities can take place.
Just because other nations have a right does not mean the America need not exercise their rights. Nor does it mean that there is some universal ranking of rights, that is why we are sovereign and they are sovereign. And it is not imperialism either, we have intererests and they have interests and the interests conflict.
July 21, 2005 @ 9:16 pm | Comment
4
By Conrad
Iran is not entitled to nuclear weapons because it has signed and reatified the nuclear non-proliferation treaty pursuant to which it promised, in exchange for access to peaceful nuclear technology, never to develop such weapons or weapons technology.
July 21, 2005 @ 10:34 pm | Comment
5
By richard
Hey, we signed the Kyoto Protocols and backed out. No big deal. it’s been done before.
July 21, 2005 @ 10:39 pm | Comment
6
By Conrad
Richard:
The US never ratified the Kyoto Protocols and was therefore never a party to Kyoto. A treaty has no binding effect on the US unless it is BOTH signed by the President AND ratified by the Senate.
The US Senate voted 95-0 in favor of a resolution stating that the Kyoto treaty would do “serious economic harm” to the US and that the US should not be a party to it.
The Senate then appoved an appropriations bill, by a vote of 97-2, forbidding the spending of any money towards implementing any of the Kyoto Protocols.
Among the Democrats voting against Kyoto were: John Kerry, John Edwards, Teddy Kennedy, Robert Byrd (a co-sponsor), Barbara Boxer, Evan Bayh, Max Cleland, Richard Durbin, Diane Feinstein, Pat Leahey, Chuck Schumer, Patty Murray, Harry Reid, Patrick Moynihan, Tom Harkin, in otherwords, the entire Democratic leadership of the Senate.
July 22, 2005 @ 1:06 am | Comment
7
By renxu
US needs to set a good example to convince other countries that it’s their best interest to have nukes. Not many people are really going to listen to us if we are actively developing future mimi-scale nukes and other countries can not have nukes. Sadly, history told them that one way to have respect from the US is to have nukes.
July 22, 2005 @ 1:50 am | Comment
8
By Conrad
I agree that the US needs to set an example for other countries that it is not in their best interests to have nukes.
Let’s set that example by nuking North Korea.
July 22, 2005 @ 2:55 am | Comment
9
By Bing
Conrad
Two words for people like you: innocent boldness
July 22, 2005 @ 8:27 am | Comment
10
By Thomas
Conrad,
One word for you:
Touche!!!!
July 22, 2005 @ 8:39 am | Comment
11
By Bing
Let’s nuke each other or if we couldn’t reach you by missles let’s just blow the bulk of Asia out of this planet so you bullys would exclusively enjoy your hegemony forever.
July 22, 2005 @ 9:01 am | Comment
12
By renxu
Conrad,
Do you know why not much progress has been made on the nuclear talk with North Korea? That’s because we think they now have nukes and we can not do much about them. Declaring on them is not a good option. They have earned some respect from the US.
Nuking North Korea? I hope you are not talking like Chinese general Zhu.
July 22, 2005 @ 9:42 am | Comment