Why is it okay for the USA and 4 other nations to have nuclear weapons but not N. Korea?

Question

I think it is hypocritical of us. Please don't bombard me with answers talking about how stupid I am - this is a serious question.

Answer 1

The countries that have the arms have enough to lose if any are launched. Iran, Iraq, and N. Korea are run by some of the nuttiest folks on earth. People that would rather to kill you than live themselves. The only thing that keeps Nukes from being lobbed around the globe is the idea that there will be no winner, and by launching a nuke yourself, you've pretty much signed your own death warrant. In otherwords, it's a suicide attack and we all understand that.

Now, with all of the suicide bombings going on over in the mid-east, does it take any kind of imagination whatsovever to figure out what would happen if these dumb@55es got their hands on nukes?

Answer 2

5 wrongs don't make a right? The more nations with weapons, the more chance someone will use them again. The more unstable the country, the more the control is in the hands of a single individual instead of a system with checks and balances, the more likely the weapons will be used again.

Not that Superman 4 was a good movie, but he had the right idea. Outside of fantasy, there doesn't seem to be a way to put the genie back in the bottle.

Answer 3

While the proliferation of nuclear arms is sad as there is a greater chance of accidents and mis-use, all countries have the right to protect themselves. North Koreans have a fear of invasion from the US and have issued booklets telling their citizens how to build tunnels and such to prepare for such an invasion. We have seen how the US has gone into many countries, literally taken over the governments, installed puppet governments and supported dictators. Every country should have the right to self-determination and defense. Why didn't we have an uproar over India's nuclear weapons? Could it have been collusion so that China and Russia were surrounded by nuclear-armed countries? Much of North Korean's rhetoric is simply to gain attention, and supplication from wealthier and more powerful countries. China is even more intimately concerned as the missiles can reach every major city in China and in the event of a nuclear exchange between the US and North Korea, the fall-out would affect the Chinese and would pull them into the war for China's self defense. It is rather amazing that we never asked permission to do missile tests from other countries and now chide North Korea for doing the same. When we unleashed the atomic bombs on Japan, how many countries approved the use of such devastating weapons? Japan has sent numerous rockets into space, reportedly for communication purposes, but with their technology, those satellites could be spy-satellites and their home defense force is becoming well-developed and we could have deja vu all over again.But we say nothing. Kim, the North Korean President is very anti-west and it has been ingrained into the children, so the answer to defuse the mess is not from western countries but Asian countries and notably China. At this moment there are no potential aggressors around North Korea, except South Korea but their weapons and missiles present them with the ability to attack a large number of Southeast Asian nations. It is time to reason together.

Answer 4

I agree with you. Many people would allege that North Korea shouldn't be allowed to have weapons because of their communist government and because they might have the balls to use them. However, which is the only country in the world so far to have used nukes? America. As far as history is concerned, we're the only ones to have used them...and using them in the future, at least according to Bush, is an option. I"m suprised the whole world isn't after us to quit our nuclear program. We've got enough nukes to blow the world away. North Korea hasn't got enough nukes to do any real damage...and the testing they did proves their weapons are still far short of those produced here. I don't know. I really think the media is blowing the North Korea issue way out of proportion because this administration is trigger happy and it needs a new target to shoot at. I could be wrong, but oh well.

Answer 5

Well, there is some hipocracy there, but baby life itself is hipocracy, man.

You are a citizen of the greatest nation and society that has ever ruled the earth. If you are too much of a wimp to find some joy in that, move to the wreched third world and see how you find life there.

What we have, and hopefully the others, is controls so just one person doesn't push the button.

If the President goes mad the US won't launch. North Korea....different story.

All men are created equal but not all nations. If it were that way, there would be bloddy chaos because most of these monkeys have no idea how to even govern themselves.

Answer 6

Here are some possible (and somewhat - but not enitrely - plausible) reasons:

1. Those 4 "trusted" countries are GENERALLY thought of, by most people in the world, as being relatively democratic, relatively "responsible", relatively rational, relatively peaceful, relatively civilized, and relatively "world caring" and world conscious.

2. On the other hand, countries like Iran and North Korea are all the opposite of those things. Besides, those 2 countries, in particular, are ruled undemocratically either by religious zealots, crazed terrorists, psycopaths, or similar ilk, who have little caring about what happens to their own people or people elsewhere in the world, but care only about their own selfish, diabolical fetishes, or their primitive, fractured, and despotic religions.

3. Most importantly, most people in the world feel, I think, that the 4 hightly developed countries you mentioned have too much at stake, (and, therefore, too much to lose), by using the "bomb" stupidly.

4. On the other hand, not very many people feel confident that Iran and North Korea would be restrained to use the "bomb" out of this same, normal "self-interest". Many believe the crazed, primitive, and clerical thinkers who rule those countries would be happy to destroy the whole world, and all of humanity in it, if they felt humiliated, or if their distorted reading of the Koran seemed to tell them to do so.

I'm not saying that all of these are entirely good reasons for some countries to have the "bomb". but I think these are the reasons most people do not worry about the 4 "trusted" countries having it. But, of course, most people could be wrong, because the bomb is truly dangerous in anyone's hands! Just MHO.

Answer 7

Sweatheart---go back to sleep--and leave this question alone. You cant be serious asking it in the first place. North Korea is dying a slow death--its over populated, their resources are depleted, and their starving to death. Make threats about nuclear weapons and the major powers will find ways to relieve their condition if they promise not to use them. We monitor the weapons program, we give them some foreign aid, and a McDonalds and Coca Cola plant will open soon at your nearest 38th parallel.

Answer 8

First, you do not attack a u . s . a . that has nuclear guns, no matter if or not they seem to be a lot less powerful than those you've. the prospect is in common words too large. North Korea's acquisition of nuclear guns has shielded them from any type of preemptive attack. If Iran is in a position to augment nuclear guns till eventually now someone destroys their centers, they are typically evidence adversarial to attack. the different is actual, too, inspite of the actuality that. Iran and North Korea will with the help of no means attack any nuclear-possessing or nuclear-allied u . s . of u . s . of america via actuality the prospect of nuclear conflict is in common words too large. second, they promote them. North Korea sells all of its technologies. If Iran ever develops nuclear guns, they likely will promote them too. it particularly is a a lot more advantageous powerful probability to the diverse nuclear powers. in the experience that they promote their guns to terrorists, the doctrine of mutually particular destruction will grow to be almost beside the point. Terrorists do not belong to a minimum of one u . s . of u . s . of america, or maybe one section. If terrorists were to set off nuclear guns in the U. S., the U. S. does not be able to justify nuclear retaliation adversarial to the country or global places the position the terrorists stay, via actuality the decision to shop on with those guns grow to be not sanctioned with the help of using the authorities. Even the conflict in Afghanistan is controversial, via actuality the Taliban did not formally help Al Qaeda. And that conflict has delivered about fewer civilian deaths than a nuclear conflict ought to.

Answer 9

It's definitely more than 4 other nations that have nukes. The reason why it is okay, is that we are currently a world super power, and we hold back progress throughout the world because some americans believe that screwing over the rest of the world in so many ways in order to maintain our lead is the only way to be safe.

Answer 10

I think because North Korea is considered a serious threat to the rest of they world. As far as America goes, I'm fairly sure the rest of the world thinks that we're all fat idiots. Also, Kim Jong-Il is a dictator, and pulled a Soviet on his country, making the communist name even worse.