Why is it OK for America to have nuclear weapons, but not some other countries?

Question

America is effectively policing the rest of the world. America is trying to control the nuclear activities of North Korea. But who is policing America? Isn't the fact that America is not policed by anybody a more dangerous problem than North Korea?

A drug addict who is still taking drugs saying to another drug addict "don't take drugs, drugs are bad, but it's ok for me to take drugs, I know what I'm doing".

Please discuss.

It can be argued that america is a lot more responsible than North Korea with Nuclear weapons. But it can never be proven that America will not do any harm with nuclear weapons in the future.

Answer 1

The imbalance of global military might is based on the premise that American policymakers are ethical and moral, and that other world leaders are not. Our arsenal of nuclear weapons is, in theory, to be used exclusively as deterrents. It's like the 6 foot 6 bodybuilder with rippling muscles. He may never actually have to fight, only flex his muscles. The flaw, of course, with this hypotheses, is that egocentric, self-proclaimed, "war presidents" like Bush have no moral fiber or integrity. Therefore, at his whim he could nuke any nation perceived as a threat to America--like Iran for example.

Answer 2

There are responsible countries who's only aim is to preserve their own security and I'm perfectly fine with them having nukes. Britain, France, India, China, Russia and even Israel. I'd be perfectly fine if Canada, Austrailia, Japan or many democratic western european nations wanted to join the nuclear club too.

Then there are unpredictable beligerant countries who statements would lead us to believe they would use nukes in an aggressive way. Iran and North Korea both fit that description.

America isn't policed by anyone because we are the reluctant policeman. No one else will step up and do the job. Have you seen any country do anything serious about Iran? I think France has sactioned them so they can't get French wine and french pastries. How about Darfur? How about North Korea? Hey World! We're a little busy in Afghanistan and Iraq right now. Would you mind taking care of these other matters? Yeah....like that's going to happen.

It's not a matter of America policing the rest of the world. It's about the rest of the world not stepping up and doing some of the policing

Answer 3

Well, the way I see it. The Americans and the Soviet Union had the knowledge that if one fired then the other would too. It's called MAD: Mutual Assured Destruction

I still believe that the American Administration would never been dumb enough to use the bomb again. I believe that they have enough sense to know what sort of impact that would have on the world.

Other countries though, such as rogue nations that have said they will use them if threatened. That's dangerous, too dangerous to let slid

Iran has said it will bomb Isreal, that might be just bluster but it's enough to make me believe that they aren't mature enough to have it. North Korea uses whatever accuse to justive their WMD program but it will lead to a new arms race, possibily bring many more countries into the nuclear club (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) and that will only lead to bad things happening

Answer 4

If other countries develop their own nuclear weapons then how are the British, French, Russians, and the US going to be able to sell nuclear weapons to them?

That's why it was okay for India and Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons. They are good customers!

It is more the case of a major drug dealing cartel saying that a bloke making his own crystal meth in his basement is a stinking evil drug dealer and should be arrested!

And, what about Japan? It is good that they have the US to protect them, otherwise some evil country might just drop a couple of nukes on two of their cities!

Answer 5

Who would you rather see holding nuclear weapons - a country with many resources to defend itself, or a country with just that one nuke? America can defend herself very well, using the army, navy, air force, marines, etc. North Korea has one militant dictator who starves his own people to death by spending his money and resources on developing a hugely expensive weapon, instead of feeding his own countrymen.

There's an old saying that goes, "When the only tool you have is a hammer, all of your problems start to look like nails". What happens when North Korea decides to use it's only hammer - that nuclear bomb - on South Korea, on Japan, on China, Taiwan, or possibly the US?

One more problem - what happens if Kim Jong Il decides to sell that bomb? Who do you think wants to buy one, and has the resources to do so? Al Quaida? The Taliban?

Now who would you rather see owning the nukes?

Answer 6

I think the world's assumption has been that America, in times past a bastion of freedom and democracy, and a so-called 'superpower,' is the best and most qualified nation to reign in the aspirations of other countries who might develop a nuclear arsenal and then actually use it against another country.

However, there are plenty of people who have pointed out that America remains the only country which has developed a nuclear arsenal and actually used it against another country.

Given our history, and our current issues, it's not surprising that countries like North Korea claim some concerns about our collective mental stability and empire-building intentions, and have chosen this time as a good one to go ahead acquire nuclear weapons. There are plenty of people in the world now who are sympathetic to any country willing to defy the USA and her allies. We not only lost the moral high ground when we invaded Iraq, but we gave credence to the concerns of countries like North Korea which claim they need nuclear capability as a deterrent, to protect themselves from us.

Answer 7

Countries like North Korea and Iran are rogue nations with unstable leaders. It would be foolish for the US, or the rest of the world, to allow them to develop nuclear technologies, for any reason. They are also state sponsors of world wide terrorism. America is a world leader, who has taken on the responsibility of policing the world. If you think that's a bigger problem than North Korea having nukes, your crazy !!!

Answer 8

Your question is an answer in itself.

Who polices the policeman? The UN is dominated by and bullied by the USA which has powers of veto in the security council, so nothing gets passed it doesnt want to get passed. The general assembly cannot concern themselves with anything that is being dealt with by the security council, so that takes care of the rest of the world having a say.

The argument of power has superceded the power of the argument.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Answer 9

It is very disturbing. Remember also that the USA is the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons...

Answer 10

Paranoid Hypocrisy of the Bush administration with the Pentagon hawks.