I recently had a strange discussion with an American liberal. She put forward the question as to why does the US have the right to try to stop other countries from acquiring the same nuclear weapons the US has?

At some point in the middle of answering that question, I realized that my answers would be meaningless to her.

I initially put forward the response that there is simply a moral yardstick that we can measure these countries by, and the US is at one end and Syria, North Korea, and Iran (for instance) are clearly at the other end.

A country that uses chemical weapons of mass destruction on its own citizens, a country that will keep its citizens permanently impoverished just to gain a WMD, and a country that openly declares it will use a nuclear weapon to commit genocide is simply not a country that should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon in its arsenal, and everyone has a right to prevent them from acquiring nukes.

But that argument fell on deaf ears as the question repeated itself, what right does the US have to make itself the nuclear policeman of the world and prevent others from acquiring nuclear weapons.

I tried again and asked if Iran had a bomb and planned to send one over in a cargo ship, doesn’t the US have a right to stop them before they get it.

Still no go.

It would appear that to the American Liberal, there is no relative or objective morality. Perhaps there is no morality at all. Or perhaps just a complete level of naïveté when it comes to accepting that there is good, and more relevantly, evil in this world, and what evil is willing to do.

Sort of like Obama meeting with Chavez.