How does the world decide who is allowed to possess nuclear weapons?

Question

What right does the U.S. or any other nation have to prohibit another nation from possessing nuclear weapons? Why is it fine for the U.S. or Israel to have nuclear weapons, but not Iran or North Korea? Is it because we are "good", and they are "evil"? Or is there some historic treaty I am unaware of that the world signed on to at some point that said that a few countries could have nukes, but that's it?

"A world where [North Korea | Iran] has nuclear capabilities is not a safe world". I don't know if anyone has said that verbatim, but I can say I agree with that statement. But until there is evidence that they plan to harm another nation without provocation, what right do we have to do anything about it?

Yes, I know Kim Jun Ill has starved 3 million of his own people. So why don't we invade North Korea to stop *this*?

Is a nation's treatment of its own people the benchmark by which its "right" to have nuclear weapons is determined?

Answer 1

There is a nuclear non-proliferation treaty signed into law by the United Nations. This means that the world has said, “Enough!” They don’t want everyone to have the bomb. Most of the countries including Iran and North Korea signed that treaty.
The problem is that the United Nations doesn’t have the courage to enforce it.

Answer 2

It comes down to world consensus and the nation in question, or it's leadership's, history. For example, in this country anyone can buy a handgun until they care convicted of a violent crime or other felony. This is evidence of bad judgment and possibly criminal intent. If the US wanted to go to stop Kim Jung Il from developing nuclear weapons, we could but without strong support from other nations we could leave ourselves open to reprisals. Only with support can we effect the kind of changes needed to keep such powerful weapons out of the hands of nations that no one trusts.

Answer 3

Lets look at the people in charge in these countries who are manning the nukes..
Im not saying we are right but c'mon.. do you really want Kim Jun Il to just be having a bad day and decide that he wants to blow up N/S Korea???

If we are legit in going to Iraq and WE do manage somehow or the other to regain some kind of democracy for them.. Do you really want Iran to be able to decide ok. I want to blow it up today??

Then all of our efforts would really be in vain, and it would be a dishonor to all of the men and women who had died, and who continue to put their lives on the line every day for us over there.
I DO oppose the war.. but I SUPPORT our troops..
I think we DO need to do something and it is NOT just us who is concerned with NK and Iran.. Its our allies as well...

They are concerned, whether or not the UN will REALLY do anything but a mild slap on the wrist.. that is yet to be seen. For once I feel like we SHOULD say something.. this would be a legitimate reason to voice our opinion..unlike in other situations where we just throw our weight around.

Answer 4

Clinton, while he ordered the cruise missle strikes in Iraq while Saddam had kicked out the U.N. weapons inspectors. of direction, George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq even nevertheless Saddam had permit the weapons inspectors return or maybe nevertheless they had chanced on no longer something. the reason they chanced on no longer something is that once those 1998 cruise missle strikes, Saddam had desperate that he had to get into compliance. As chronicled in "Fiasco" by Thomas E. Ricks (that's now required examining at our conflict college), U.S. weapons Inspector David Kay chanced on by using his interviews with Iraqi scientists after Saddam replaced into deposed that Iraq had ceased any tries to restart its nuclear and different WMD courses after those 1998 cruise missle strikes. those self same strikes have been derided by Bush administration officers in 2001 as 'pinpricks' and have been criticized by GOP morons on the floor of the residing house of Representatives on the day they have been released as being finished to distract the country from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. So wager what, invoice Clinton and George H.W. Bush had gotten rid of Saddam's WMD. George W. Bush on the different hand blew up a rustic that no longer replaced right into a risk based upon bogus intelligence pushed by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz.

Answer 5

In my opinion, its because the US wants to stay a world power and our government is corrupt. However, those countries have more unstable governments, and take priority on their military expansion, over the welfare of their citizens. I mean, any country can have a nuke, once they prove that they are stable and flourishing. The reason the us, isreal, and the other world powers have em, is to protect their flourishing populations, heck, even idia has some, and you don't see the US throwing sanctions at them. Because they're strong democratically.
And we aren't storming N Korea because there ain't no oil there. The same with not stopping the genocides in africa, there are no lucrative prospects there.

Answer 6

Rock paper scissors.

Answer 7

because the US wants to control everything...remember if we deny others the right...eventually we will deny ourselves any rights....

Answer 8

basicly its whos got the biggest dick

Answer 9

You must be at least this tall to posses nuclear weapons.




____________________________________________________