If the u.s.a. has nuclear weapons , what gives them the right to say who can have the same weapons ?

Question

any country should have the right to defend itself against the crazy americans

Answer 1

Listen we had nuclear weapons a long, long time ago and haven't been actively using them for war. You can't let every country have them or their would be no world. For instance if Rwanda had nuclear weapons would it still be on the map? No. Look at the middle east would you want every military faction over their to have them. We and other nations have been resourceful with the technology turning it into energy for one...aka. nuclear power. If you would give Palestinians or any jihadists nuclear weapons it would only take one suicide bombing to desimate that whole region.

Answer 2

That needs a correction - Americans are not crazy - the government, which barley half the Americn People voted into office, can be considerd crazy by some due to it's policies towards other nations.

The US in a consortium with Britan, Canada and France developed nuclear weapons during the last years of WW 2 to ensure that hitler did not acquire the technology.
Some of those scientists then ensured that the Soviet Union got a copy of the information to ensure a balance of power, rather an a totalitarian regime controlled by the Allied western nations.

As the saying goes, "the Might has the Right" - Ths Us is now unapposed as the lone remaining true superpower - with the soviets having fallen apart into their seperate countries, and no other nation having the military or economic build-up necessary to take on the United states on a head-to-head conflict.

Over the years, other countries have independantly and wilth assistance from classified documents leaked to them, developed nuclear capability. If they do not agree with US policy, then the US feels it has the right to be the police for the world - as the UN does not have any 'teeth' to fight independantly of the nations that make it up.

There have been countless debates over the why and how of American Foreign Policy, and the debates will continue for as long as there is a United States. Not everybody agrees with the US view, but most people do agree there needs to be an international police force capable of taking on a threat to the world's peace and at this time, the US is it.

If you don't like the policy of the United States, as a citizen you can vote for a new leader and change that policy. If you are a citizen of another country, vote or contact your leaders to get them to communicate the needs of the people to the United states - international pressure can change US policy far more assuredly than a terrorist attack.

Answer 3

When it comes to nuclear weapons, there will be NO winner if anyone starts using them. In theory, the ban on nuclear weapons is not imposed by the US, but by the UN. There are some political 'hot spots' where nuclear weapons could potentially be used with horrendous results. So the strategy is to deny these countries access to the most chilling of weapons of mass destruction.
But truly, if someone detonated a nuclear weapon and another country retaliated, the havoc that could result is unimaginable. When the A bomb was dropped against Japan to bring WW2 to an end in the Pacific, there was no retaliatory blast. But if you read the history of the Hiroshima explosion, and realize that that weapon was only fractionally as powerful as today's weapons, you can understand what the potention for tragedy would be.

Answer 4

the excuse of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. You see, if only the US had nuclear weapons they'd feel good about it, but let's say you're a world leader in the rest of the world who holds slightly different values, were the US to become, say overly aggressive because they didn't like your politics you'd seriously have to consider any "suggestions" the US were to make.

Now if you go out and develop nuclear capabilities (N. Korea, Pakistan and now Iran), then the US must treat you, a small backwater, peasant of a leader/country with a lot more respect, because you may not win the war, but you've got the means to stage one hell of a battle. It may not be mutually-assured destruction, but it's certainly more than US politicians are willing to risk.

Hence, they must try to dissuade all countries without nuclear capabilities from getting it. Plus, like the US, most of those countries have corrupt officials and they may not really know where all their nuclear arsenal is at any given moment.

Nelson DeMille's Cuba is a GREAT read.

Answer 5

Well, I would have to agree with President Ahmadinejad and say that noone should have nuclear weapons; as he said "Why do we need these weapons. Are they to promote peace and democracy...or intruments of coercion and threats against other people and government." I do not believe that any country should be allowed to have such weapons. If you want to read his speech to the U.N. where I quoted, here you are http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092000807.html?nav=rss_world

Answer 6

Unfortunetely, our government operates much like the mafia: "Be the strongest in your neighborhood, and stop someone from becoming strong so you don't have to compete with them in the future." The US government is afraid that someone else will have a bargaining chip when they sit down at the table. Another reason is the cold war. We have defenses in place to stop the Russians if they launch, but not North Korea (as far as I know) because they've never been a threat before.

Answer 7

Because we have experienced the consequences of using them on Japan in World War II and realize the horrors that were unleashed by using it. We realize that unstable leaders will use the weapons to destroy their enemies. We at least have learned from experience and will not use it again.

Answer 8

I assume you are talking about our present cunundrum with the Iranians? The problem is the terrorist ties that Iran has. Hamas, Hezbullah and other groups. Some suggest that even Al-queda is now involved with the Iranian intelligence agencies. Its likely that Iran will allow these materials to find their way to the terrorists.

Answer 9

It's not about "nuclear weapons", a "war on terror", or "fighting for freedom". It's REALLY about THIS!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm

Answer 10

Here you go again asking the wrong question. You people need to be educated.

NOTE : People, check out his other questions. There is a pattern to this guy.