Is it right for the USA to possess Nuclear Weapons, but tell other countries they can't?

Question

How can the USA have Nuclear Weapons but not allow anyone else to have them???

Answer 1

It depends on whose viewpoint of "right" is considered. Only one nation has, to date, used nuclear "weapons of mass destruction" in war. It was against essentially civilian targets too. Many people have tried to justify the expediency of hitting a nation that was already on the threshold of total defeat. "It saved lives." "It kept Stalin out of Japan". Umm, maybe...
The kindest thing I can think is that maybe the folks who dropped these bombs recoiled at the horror caused by this weapon and tried to halt the proliferation. I think that's kind of weak. Sure, Hitler would have used atomic weapons if he had them ... a fine endorsement if ever I heard one. Actually, "what goes around comes around" is the phrase that seems most haunting. Had the UN been strengthened soon after 1945 as "sole repository" of the nightmare weapon, it might have worked. People forget that "the future" can be a long time and now it's easy to get nuclear technology. The US has power to strongly denounce nations that gain nuclear capability. That will really discourage "beloved leader", no doubt. This makes me feel so very secure ... Could it be that the influence of America on minds and hearts was much greater before she aspired to police the world, Maybe we are squandering our brief moment in the pages of history. What will be said a thousand years from now?

Answer 2

It's a result of a somewhat complicated doctrine called Balance of Power, or Nuclear Deterrants in a Dangerous World (my title). When the United States and the Soviet Union both developed nuclear arsenals which were enough to wipe out the entire population of the world in all-out nuclear war in the 1960s, a simple, yet complicated, method of controling total destruction was put forward by these Super Powers. The U.S. would not take first-strike inititive if the USSR agreed not to also. So the balance of power was struck, based on each having enough nuclear hardware to wipe out the other and then some.

As other countries developed there own nuclear weapons, the balance was maintained because few others could match the might and number of the Big Two's arsenals. However, it became clear that the issue of proliferation had to be addressed before every country in the world had its own nukes. One nuclear bomb could cause so much destruction that it was no longer tolerable to imagine it. And the repercussions of escalating counter attacks gave a small conflict consequecnce of major proportions. So, there was an effort to impose a limit on additional countries who could develop atomic weapons.

A freeze was put on atomic bombs even by the major powers, and attempts have been underway to reduce arsenals. Yet some countries have for whatever reasons, gone ahead with their own nuclear weapons. Such unauthorized nukes as these in the hands of what are considered irresponsible actors on the world stage create an imbalance in the power factor and a dangerous threat. So this is why the U.S. attempts to keep other countries from having the Bomb. Regretably the U.S. has them, knows the responsibility of them, and agrees with other responsible nations that no other nations should have them.

Answer 3

After the major powers all developed nuclear programs decades ago and the world discovered the inherent dangers of such stupidity most civilized countries signed a non-proliferation treaty. This treaty meant that such development would stop. And stupidity it was with all the "mutual destruction" BS keeping peace. LOL, only an animal like man could come up with such a crazy way of existence.

But now that the Soviet Union is no more all of these little countries feel they have the right to join the ranks of the worlds morons too. So they disregard the treaty and go ahead and develop nuclear weapons. Now instead of just a handful of countries threatening to blow the world to hell we have a bunch of unstable governments threatening to blow the world to hell. Man, I will take the Cold War anyday. At least the Soviets didn't believe in suicide bombers.

Answer 4

America is ruled by the people, theoretically (according to democracy theory), which is why we can't allow a singular party of power (such as a dictatorship) to possess nuclear weapons.

I know that the US is the only nation to have ever used them on a population, which really hurts our case, but nonetheless, another theory that helps our argument is the fact that enough nuclear weapons exist already to annihilate the entire planet 9 times over, and nuclear waste takes thousands of years to get rid of. Even if all production were halted right now, it would still be thousands of years before the amount of nuclear waste on this earth is reduced. So we better start now.

Answer 5

WE above anyone else, have the right to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, why? Because we are the only ones in history to have actually used a weapon of this magnitude against a REAL target, and that target had thousands of people who lived there, and in a blink of an eye, no longer lived! So yes we have the right, and more, we have the responsibility to prevent that tragedy from ever happening again.

Answer 6

its all about power. whoever has the power is "right" in the eyes of the world, that is, for the time being. History clearly shows this. Examples are Rome, Alexander the Great....hey what the hell am i talkin about? Im blabbin bullcrap here! Better watch the FBI...hey! im just jokin friends...i mean whatever america does is good because they're the only superpower, right? and anyone that disagree will taste the fury of high tech planes, spy sat, computer guided missiles, all these things for the good of the world, cause u know the world is in danger right now from terrorists...(i love being sarcastic)

Answer 7

I think that no country in the world should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. If a particular country wants to have a war, they should do it the old-fashioned---way with tanks, planes, helicopters, and infantry soldiers.

Answer 8

IT IS NOT RIGHT ( practice before u preach)

The United States was the first country in the world to successfully develop nuclear weapons, and is the only country to have used them in war against another nation. During the Cold War it conducted over a thousand nuclear tests and developed many long-range weapon delivery systems. It maintains an arsenal of about ten thousand warheads to this day, as well as facilities for their construction and design, though many of the Cold War facilities have since been deactivated and are sites for environmental remediation.

Current status

The LGM-118A Peacekeeper missile was phased out of the U.S. arsenal in 2005.
U.S. nuclear warhead stockpile, 1945-2002. Under the 2002 SORT treaty, the U.S. will reduce its stockpile to 2,220 operationally deployed warheads by 2012.The United States is one of the five recognized nuclear powers under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It maintains a current arsenal of around 9,960 intact warheads, of which 5,735 are considered active or operational, and of these only a certain number are deployed at any given time. These break down into 5,021 "strategic" warheads, 1,050 of which are deployed on land-based missile systems (all on Minuteman ICBMs), 1,955 on bombers (B-52 and B-2), and 2,016 on submarines (Ohio class), according to a 2006 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council.[14] Of 500 "tactical"/"nonstrategic" weapons, around 100 are Tomahawk cruise missiles and 400 are B61 bombs. A few hundred of the B61 bombs are located at eight bases in six European NATO countries, the only such weapons in forward deployment.

Around 4,225 warheads have been removed from deployment but have remained stockpiled as a "responsible reserve force" on inactive status. Under the May 2002 Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions, the U.S. pledged to reduce its stockpile to 2,200 operationally deployed warheads by 2012, and in June 2004 the Department of Energy announced that "almost half" of these warheads would be retired for dismantlement by then.[15]

A 2001 Nuclear posture review published by the Bush administration called for a reduction in the amount of time needed to test a nuclear weapon, and for discussion on possible development in new nuclear weapons of a low-yield, "bunker-busting" design (the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator). Work on such a design had been banned by Congress in 1994, but the banning law was repealed in 2003 at the request of the Department of Defense. The US Air Force Research Laboratory researched the concept, but the United States Congress cancelled funding for the project in October 2005 at the National Nuclear Security Administration's request. According to Jane's Information Group, the program may still continue under a new name.

In 2005 US revised its nuclear strategy, the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations, to use nuclear weapons preemptively against adversary WMDs or overwhelming conventional forces.

The United States currently remains the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons against another nation in a conflict.

Answer 9

Probably not. We are the ONLY ones who actually dropped a nuclear bomb on people, although it did spare the lives of countless of Asians in China, Philippines and S. E. Asia. Was the action just then? Yes, probably...because it ended World War II. We should have dropped one on Germany too!

Answer 10

Of course not, its like the crazy bully on the playground running back and forth beating up all the other kids for lunch money just cause he thinks they're all scared of him. I doubt the U.S. wants to actually go about instigating war with Korea, not with China and Russia backing each other as Allies. They have as much military might as we have, not to mention we'll be in the midst of fighting two wars then. I know Bush and his fellow idiots who dictate America can't be that crazy. Or.......