why are we allowed nuclear weapons but iran and iraq arne't?

Question

i am not in support of them i just wondered why we are allowed to "protect" ourselves with theese weapons but other countries arne't allowed to?

why is this a silly question if it was the other way round we would all be thinking it

ARN'T ARN'T ARN'T
there is that better?

Answer 1

People say "because they cant be trusted with them!", which is ridiculous. I dont expect they think we can be trusted with them either!

We are not the world police!

I am sick and tired of Americas "DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO" attitude. Its incredibly patronising and shows a blatent lack of respect for other nations.....which, by the way, is exactly what spurs the terrorists on in the first place.

Answer 2

First, that is not a silly question. It's a very valid question.
Second, The NNPT or NPT as you call it kind of says that those that have nuclear weapons shall continue to have them and those that don't may never develop them. Obviously it helps the ones that are nuclear-haves and puts them at an advantage with the nuclear-have-nots.
Now Iran, Iraq and many other countries simply went ahead and signed the treaty because they thought its a great treaty. However, a treaty is like a contract and you are supposed to abide by the contract. Three countries, Israel, India and Pakistan have never signed the treaty citing this exact reasoning. Therefore they are not bound by any contracts and they have gone ahead and developed weapons.
So the first mistake was Iran's and it was a diplomatic mistake. If they wanted nuclear weapons they shouldn't have signed the NPT. Now that they have, they are bound by the contract.

On the other hand I see your point as well. The USA is the only country to have ever used the nuclear weapon. Not once! But even after seeing the extent of destruction once, they used it AGAIN. And I can see some people saying that the USA can be trusted with it while others can't. Bullshit! We have already proved we can't be trusted and we have used it.
Some people raise the "religious fundamentalism" issue. That's bullshit too. You think islamic fundamentalism is the only kind of religious fundamentalism? What do you think of christian fundamentalism? What about the leader of the allegedly most technologically advanced country claiming they he receives his orders from god??

So I totally agree with your question. However, having said that and having vented my feelings I must also say that once you sign a contract you should abide by it. That is the basis of society and civilization. Or if you want to withdraw from the contract, you should do that first and then do what you want. But while you are a signatory of a contract you should not renege on your promise.

Answer 3

Yeah, seems kind of hypocritical, huh? We think we're the only nation responsible enough to control nukes?! I mean, we set such a great example here. We're the only ones that have ever used an atomic weapon (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and we did that to instill fear in the USSR. Only our Hawks can connect those dots. Don't get me wrong though, I don't think it's a good idea that Iraq, Iran, or any other country obtain nuclear weapons. France, and India, and Pakistan. USSR, US, etc should all de-fuse the current nukes. We call them deterents, but all they have done is make it so more countries want to build them and level the playing field. What a sick field. Ideally, we would create a secure defense against any threat. We could still use conventional weapons if all else fails in world relations. It'd be nice if we set the example of what a healthy Democracy could really achieve. Human rights abuses could be extinguished, no one would have to starve. Health care for all....education.....What a dreamer, huh? Just imagine what else we could have used that $328 billion spent on "building Democracy" in Iraq. If we went to the moon, we could have certainly developed an alternatively powered vehicle with that kind of money, and then we wouldn't even be interfering in the Middle East or Venezuela or....Unfortunately, we have high ranking government officals that financially benefit from our use of oil and the military complex. Seems like a conflict of interest. I rant, and I know why many others do too. We don't practice what we preach. If we led by example, there would be a lot less conflict.

Answer 4

I think everyone now accepts that nuclear weapons are a bad thing and the closest we are as a race to ending the world on which we sit.

Like many things however their long term effects and geo political ramifications were not realised until after they had been developed and used the first time, and shortly after when two opposing superpower blocks had built up a huge arsenal and pointed them at each other in a 40 year nucelar stalemate.

Once you invent something you cannot un-invent it.

Therefore whilst everyone has known that they are a really bad thing, no-one could get rid of them because the "other side" had them.

Since the days of Reagan, Gorbachev and Glasnost most sane countries have been trying to dismantle the bulk of their nuclear arsenals, including Russia, the U.S and Europe. No-one wants to use these things and everyone understands the threat.

At the same time however there are a number of developing countries who see membership of the "nuclear club" as a status symbol and one which will get them taken seriously. For some its is because their neighbours and ancient enemies have it and they feel threatened, and for others its because they want to threaten each other.

Examples are India and Pakistan who have both spent billions developing nuclear weapons to wave at each other over a stupid border dispute whilst large parts of their respective populations starve to death.

Its like teenage kids with guns. No idea how to use them properly, no real conception of the damage they do, but just a load of angst and emotion, which will usually end to an innocent bystander getting killed. The difference here is that when these "teenage" states make a mistake with a nuclear weapon there will be literally millions of innoicent bystanders killed.

So back to the statement that you cannot un-invent something, Unfortunately nuclear weapons are here to stay even though we wish they were not.

What the whole world has to do now is to work together to ensure that we reduce their numbers as much as possible and to also ensure that no new countries get hold of the capability if there is any doubt at all of their intentions, stability, or security.

That brings me onto Iran. This is a state where the head of the government has declared that Israel (another nuclear country) is to be "wiped off the map". This government see it as their duty to god to bring this about.

Any attempt to do so with conventional weapons would lead to a bloody and awful war (which Iran would probably lose). Any attempt to do so with nuclear weapons could just conceivably lead to the end of the world.

This is also a country which has long sponsored Hamas and other terrorist groups in the middle east, and given that a nuclear weapon big enough to destory New York City or London could now be concealed in a suitcase, it is a concern that development of nuclear technology by regimes like this could end up with bombs in the hands of people who will actually use them as they have nothing to lose and everytjhing to gain.

Does that help?

Answer 5

The USA bombed Japan and they still have nuclear weapons - but that's ok because the USA makes up the rules, right? How many other countries have bombed people with nuclear weapons in the last 60 years? That's what I call untrustworthy. This will probably start arguments but wouldn't it be safer if EVERYBODY had nuclear weapons, then it'd be a sort of stalemate with no-one wanting to risk using them? I also think the terrorist argument is flawed coz until a few years ago the UK and Ireland were virtually at war with loads of terrorism but they didn't use nucs.

Answer 6

Only those countries that fear another country would not want them to have nuclear weapons. The US, the UK and France all fear what Iran may do if they had such weapons. Why do they fear Iran? because mainly these countries have interfered in the lives of these countries internal struggles. Iraq was NEVER a threat to the USA and UK until Bush and the UK's prime minister interfered in their lives. Saddam had nothing to do with the Al Qida (a guess at the spelling but I am sure you can figure it out) but Bush made it a lieing issue and excuse to attack Iraq.

Answer 7

Because, due to our position in the world, it has fallen to the U.S. to protect most of the world. No matter what you currently think of the U.S., it is - by and large - the world's policeman. And, by the way, the rest of the world would not be happy if it wasn't. So the U.S. is a protector, though sometimes you can argue with the method. The U.S. has nuclear weapons as a deterrent, with no designs of taking over the world or slaughtering people just because of their religious beliefs. Iran, on the other hand, is an aggressor who would use nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. They refuse, for example, to even acknowledge Israel's right to EXIST. Iran is dangerous, unstable, and fanatical (their government, anyway).

Answer 8

Basically, because we don't want to nuke Israel, let alone any part of the world. We don't carelessly bomb places, they might. And because, if Iraq did possess nuclear weapons which thus far it didn't, the weapons would have gone into the wrong hands. America and the rest of the world don't need another 9/11, Halocaust, or World War. Hope that helps! ~just so you know, aren't is spelled this way because are+not. To make it the aren't you need to take out the "o" in not and that is why the ' is there.

Answer 9

I read many newpapers, and I know that Iran or Iraq hate the American and British people. And with this hatred, it is very clear to the mind of the American and British Government, that having Iran or Iraq succeeded in their nuclear technology, is clear and present danger to the national security of both countries. Because once Iran or Iraq have the nuclear weapons, they will used it against the US and Britain. It is not that they are not allowed but the truth is that US and Britain does not want them to have nuclear weapons.

Answer 10

It shouldn't be that "we are allowed." Naturally, "we" believe our nuclear weapon stockpile is justified. Isn't it ? What happens if a criminal steals a device form a foreign nuke warehouse. Should the world rely on the security/policing measures installed by those foreign nations ? I'm not sure that we can rely on the security measures installed by our nation.!!! A nation which threatens lives with scarce resources, and negotiates politics with its resources, is a credible threat. We should invest our time in alternative fuel research. Idealistically, prehaps baseball mit oil is all we should enjoy.

I don't remember a time when we were involved in a nuclear shootout. Maybe those other countries spend too much money fighting on-going wars, and muscling other nations with their one bottomless resource. They probably haven't had the money to invest in nuclear engineering. Educational programs are granted to those who can escape a reign of nepotic terror. Should the whole world fall prey to the whimsy of an arrogant sumvabitch ?

Answer 11

Iran signed a non-nuclear agreement. Other countries have agreed to certain conditions of trade and cooperation in many things to those countries that would not produce nuclear weapons. Iran was one of those countries.
It's as if you signed a comtract to have a house built. You give the contractor the money in advance. He takes the money but then says he changed his mind. He's not going to build the house. It all goes by agreements between countries. Make an agreement, then stick to the agreement.