nuclear weapons?

Question

wouldn't it be easier to ban the use of nuclear bombs? make them illegal to produse and to have,simply because it's a weapon of mass distruction, it's a threat mainly for the civilians and to the environmant. So that we don't have any more crises like with Iran and N.Korea, or anybody else

Answer 1

Just like fire arms just because you make them illegal doesnt mean people wont have them. They will still make them and then use them.

Answer 2

Of course it would easy to just ban the use of nuclear bombs, but how do you enforce it? We are not living in world of comic book characters. This is not Superman 4 where one man can go around and just take all the nuclear bombs and throw them into the sun.

We have already tried to ban nuclear weapons once and failed. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty made it illegal for nations outside the nuclear club of the US, the UK, France, China, and at the time the USSR to possess nuclear weapons, but that still lead to the crisis with Iran and North Korea, not to mention Pakistan and India.

Until or unless there is an over reaching world body or world government with power to enforce a ban more and more nations as they develop advanced technology will produce nuclear weapons. Even if there was such a world body, what nation would give up part of its sovereign rights and defer to such an organization?

Unfortunately it's just unrealistic to just say, let's have a ban and expect everyone to follow it. Unless there is a level playing field you can't even say... let's give up ours as an example.

Another thing to consider... suppose governments agree and ban these weapons... what's to prevent groups like terrorists, rebel groups, etc from obtaining and using the weapons on their own. There is a ban on chemical weapons as well, but in Japan that did not prevent a terrorist group from using them to gas a subway.

Answer 3

Simple solution, although not practical.

Why? Think about it, the U.N. has been attempting to negotiate with N. Korea for how long not to produce Nuclear weapons and the result.

When it was only the major powers with nuclear weapons they all knew that any exchange would create so much damage not only the countries involved but the entire world would cease to survive as a civilized society that we know. So even though we came close a few times cooler heads prevailed.

Ask your self what does N. Korea have to loose? They say this is protection against attack, but who would attack them? They have nothing but misery and poverty and no natural resources that would entice most nations from attacking them.

No major power will eliminate there nuclear weapons completely, it safeguards them in the long run and allows them to spend less on conventional forces.

Answer 4

Your suggestion is easier said than done, young man! This whole fiasco is about the US trying to get these two renegade countries to step down in its attempt to develop nukes. Unfortunately, country's such as China, Russia, France, Germany, Venezuela to name a few, have interfered with the US attempt to force these ugly and troublesome country's to comply.

The US has many adversaries, and have had these same adversaries for many, many years. It is only now that they have developed strength in numbers, where stupid people like Hugo Chavez, or Mahmoud Amhadinejad can speak out and say the things they say.

To disarm a country like N.Korea will take drastic measures. It will require the UN Security Council action to force a resolution that denies N.Korea most goods and services. This action will more than likely prompt Kim Jong Il to raise the bar even higher.
This will eventually lead to nuclear confrontation.

Answer 5

Problem with bans, its just like gun control.

The legal or legit ones will honor such agreemetns.
But the crooks never honor laws or agreements.


If it were relasstic I would agree that banning is a good idea.
Reality the only ban that works is the threat of destruction if u use a nuke on a ally.

Answer 6

Banning nuclear weapons is something like removing 20 million illegal aliens from this country.

Nice idea but hard to do.

Answer 7

It would be easier yes... but you CANNOT ban the production of nuclear bombs when you yourself still wish to keep your own.... I believe if the US & Europe would like the rest of the world to listen, then everyone in the world has to dis-arm, and all nuclear bombs get destroyed.... otherwise, other nations will always feel threatened, and hence aspire to have their own collection....

Answer 8

It would be imppssible to ban nuclear weapons because there will always be someone with enough nuts to try to break that law. What we should do is occupy suspected countries to keep an eye on them.

Answer 9

Ideally. But a crude one is easily made, and the plans have been published on the internet. Everyone does not play by the rules.

Answer 10

YOU SHOULD ASK THE AMERICANS THAT!! THEY HVE BROKE EVERY TREATY WHETHER IT IS FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS OR THE KOYTE TREATY,THEY STARTED BUILDING THE MISSILE DEFENCE SHIELD WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWED IN THE SOVIET v N.A.T.O MISSILE TREATY.ANYWAY GLOBAL WARMING WHICH AMERICA IS MOSTLY RESPOSIBLE FOR IS MORE DANGEROUS THEN A SO CALLED ROUGE COUNTRY WITH 100 NUKES,A NUKE CAN DESTRY A CITY, GLOBAL WARMING CAN DESTROY HALF THE COUNTRY.SO FIGURE IT OUT BEFORE U POINT YOUR FINGER AT ANY ONE COUNTRY!!

Answer 11

What world body has the power to ban them? The UN? not quite.