Why do we have the rights to Nukes and No-one else?

[Nathan Struth]

Why does the US and the otehr major powers have rights to Nuclear weapons but otehr ocuntries like Iran and NK don't? WHy??? 1st off these things should be banned; they're too dangerous! But please any answers?

[JohnMK]

Here's a mostly objective analysis right here:

PINR - Why States Seek to Acquire Nuclear Weapons

This would be a more oft-asked question if countries like Brazil, Canada, and Switzerland were seeking to develop nuclear weapons. But it's generally only countries that are afraid of foreign invasion; as such these nations typically have at least one enemy . . . if that enemy includes the United States, we define our objection by appealing to international "law." Internally, to our citizens, we define it by whatever suits our particular interests or advances our perception of national security. In a very real sense, might makes right.

[The Architect]

Because some nations have pyhsco leaders that want to expand, Iran wants to wants to blow Israel off the map, NK wants the get rid of SK.
If South American nations possesed nukes it wouldnt be that bad except Venusuala(sp?) Some nation are more responsible then others.

[Fonceai]

@Nathan

Because we all got them first.

By the time we realized these weapons could actually destroy the world, we yelled "STOP!"

[brien]

Quote by: Nathan Struth Why does the US and the otehr major powers have rights to Nuclear weapons but otehr ocuntries like Iran and NK don't? WHy??? 1st off these things should be banned; they're too dangerous! But please any answers?

1st off these things should be banned; they're too dangerous!

Nathan, the genie is out of the proverbial bottle. The US, or other nations who currently posses nukes, don't have a "right" to these nukes, they have a responsibility to contain their destructive power so as to protect the world from their delpoyment.

Iran and NK can very well develop nuclear weapons but it will only force them into the nuclear stalemate that currently exists in the world today. Now, if they choose to violate that mutual nuclear respect that has developed around nations which are traditional adversaries such as India and Pakistan, the US or Russia, then they most likely will be vaporized before they can cause total nuclear destruction around the globe.

Then there are Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaties.

Link: Publications: Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)

Link:NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY

Link: Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]

These are perhaps the best way to "containment" so long as the treaties are respected and are verifiably obeyed.

[dreamer]

As anybody else noticed only the countrys with nukes bully all other countrys that do not have nukes. And did you know that all bullys get their asses kicked in the end.

Dreamer

[brien]

Quote by: dreamer As anybody else noticed only the countrys with nukes bully all other countrys that do not have nukes. And did you know that all bullys get their asses kicked in the end. Dreamer

Ergo, countries that posses nukes "bully" those who don't have nukes because they threaten them with nukes? The possession of nukes is license to bully other countries around? Hmmmmmmm Interesting.

[Fonceai]

Of all the countries with nukes, the U.S. is the only one pissing in someone else's pool.

And we don't do it because we have nukes, we do it because since the turn of the century our administration has sucked.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Nathan Struth Why does the US and the otehr major powers have rights to Nuclear weapons but otehr ocuntries like Iran and NK don't? WHy???

I'm not really sure. It doesn't really bother me that other countries have nuclear weapons. The United States has a wonderful thing called isolation - Third world countries simply do not have the complex delivery systems necessary to get their weapons here.

1st off these things should be banned; they're too dangerous!

Again, I don't really worry about them. In the past year more people have died of heart disease than have died in all of human history from nuclear attack.

Getting all nations to "ban" something is always troublesome because nations are soveriegn. They barely remain within the limits of their own constitutions, let alone a treaty with no teeth.

Quote by: The Architect Because some nations have pyhsco leaders that want to expand, Iran wants to wants to blow Israel off the map, NK wants the get rid of SK.

And, knowing the concept of M.A.D., how does having nuclear weapons help them accomplish this? You really think Iran is going to use nuclear arms against Israel, or NK against SK? I don't think so. It's all sabre-rattling, just like the United States vs. USSR during the cold war.

If South American nations possesed nukes it wouldnt be that bad except Venusuala(sp?) Some nation are more responsible then others.

You cannot make a case that any given "nation" is responsible or not. Nations are millions of people in a certain area, they lack the capability of thought. Their leaders can be responsible or not, but who is and isn't is completely a question of perspective.

Quote by: dreamer As anybody else noticed only the countrys with nukes bully all other countrys that do not have nukes. And did you know that all bullys get their asses kicked in the end.

Someone needs to take a logic class - Go look up "Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc". Merely because nations with nuclear arms are more involved in world affairs, or "bullies", does not mean that nuclear arms are the reason why.

[dreamer]

Quote by: Fonceai Of all the countries with nukes, the U.S. is the only one pissing in someone else's pool. And we don't do it because we have nukes, we do it because since the turn of the century our administration has sucked.

You tell the countrys that don't have nukes that, because when a country with nukes says jump they jump. And when they say stand in the corner they stand in the corner and piss their selfs and then they do as their told. Why you may ask because their scared they may be treated like shit and get no food or oil.

Dreamer

[Fonceai]

@dreamer

Prove it.

No country tells another "Do this or we nuke you"

It's called Mutually Assured Destruction.

But down the ganja and find me some proof that a nuclear-weapons capable country threatens nuclear attack with their bullying.

[dreamer]

Quote by: Fonceai @dreamer Prove it. No country tells another "Do this or we nuke you" It's called Mutually Assured Destruction. But down the ganja and find me some proof that a nuclear-weapons capable country threatens nuclear attack with their bullying.

Don't need to prove anything its my opinon my eyes are wide open and thats how i see it.

Dreamer

[Fonceai]

Then why do you see it that way?

You need some kind of proof, or you were just writing to see your words online.

[dreamer]

Quote by: Fonceai Then why do you see it that way? You need some kind of proof, or you were just writing to see your words online.

Are countrys with nukes now bullying Iran yes or no? thats what i put up for proof, if thats not proof, iam wrong.

Dreamer

[xyzer]

I would posit that there is a danger of nuclear weapons proliferation if many nations started scrambling for nuke capapbility. Such a buildup is dangerous to the world and not desireable! This is also influenced by the advent of modern technology promising to make suitcase sized devices that can be used in this the age of terrorism. Possesser of the bombs and the technology could cause havoc. Rogue nations could not only use such devices but also sell them to non national terrorists?

Our excuse was we developed and used the bombs during a war and to win a war with less costly allied human losses. The threat of retaliation was with us from WW2 up until two decades ago. Because of the demonstrated threat of Russian expansion we didn't protest as several other friendly nations aquired the technology..obviouly we had no power to force any nation to do anything. We really don't try that tactic now. We try persuasion on rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.
We see how China is with us in trying to check the madma Kim Jong Il from refining the technology. Proliferation spells danger. Those countries who already have bombs have shown no desire to use them in their foreign policy intiatives?

[brien]

Quote by: Fonceai Of all the countries with nukes, the U.S. is the only one pissing in someone else's pool. And we don't do it because we have nukes, we do it because since the turn of the century our administration has sucked.

Of all the countries with nukes, the U.S. is the only one pissing in someone else's pool.

I am not quite sure this is true. Russia has screwed with Chechnya and China messes with their satellite states like Hong Kong, and most recently NK, and soon to be Taiwan. Everyone spies on everyone else to boot. But this is unrelated to Nukes, so it is irrelevant anyway.

[xyzer]

Fonceal...

Of all the countries with nukes, the U.S. is the only one pissing in someone else's pool.

I need some examples to buttress your claim? Our foreign policy hasn't been based on the possession of nukes or dominant power as it has been on keeping our trading avenues open and defending our citizens agains the depradations of international terrorism?
We tend to be blamed for most everything because we are the dominant power in the world..particularly since the Soviet empire collapsed. Look at the idiot KimJong Ils claim that he wouldn't haved developed nukes if we hadn't threatened him? Pretty ridiculous on its face isn't it? Have we ever threatened his country in the last half century?

I think India and Pakistan have pissed in each other pools at one time or another. As have India and China squabbled about borders..and I think Israel pissed on and destroyed Iraqs nuclear development plant with conventional weapons too. They have nukd tecnology.
Bottom line each nations foreign policy is developed in IT'S OWN INTERESTS which usually include defense, strategic advantage, and economic enhancement. It's not 'pissing' its seeking a better position for its citizenry!

[JohnMK]

Quote by: dreamer Don't need to prove anything its my opinon my eyes are wide open and thats how i see it. Dreamer

With respect to your opinion, I disagree . . . my eyes are wide open and I see it differently. Nukes aren't leveraged in that manner.

[dreamer]

Quote by: JohnMK With respect to your opinion, I disagree . . . my eyes are wide open and I see it differently. Nukes aren't leveraged in that manner.

Thats why we have free choice of opinion johnmk you have yours and i have mine if you get 12 people to agree your opinion its true and if i get 12 people to agree then iam right who wins not me and not you but two opinions that are right.

Dreamer

[Fonceai]

@brien
@xyzer

That comment was pointed at dreamer.

Currently, the U.S. is the only nuclear power that is actively trying to alter foreign policy through military force.

Trying to change behavior through threat of violence... sounds like bullying to me.

The U.K. is with us in the Middle East, but that's because they were with us when we started out hunting down the Taliban. Or was it Al Qaeda. Silly politically aligned media.