Why does every country with nukes not do away with them permanently, then the whole world would be against any

Answer 1

Good idea, BUT who will jump first?

Answer 2

The problem stems from the fact that the world cannot "un-know" something. This means that once nuclear technology is known to humanity, the bombs themselves are not the whole issue; the technology is also. The question then becomes, who will have authority over the technology. There must be an establishment of an independent international WMD authority, made up of scientists, not political people (as in the United Nations). But the establishment of such an authority is extremely awkward politically. Countries like Israel, Pakistan and North Korea are very disinterested in giving up what they have tried so hard to get in the first place. They've struggled very long and invested a lot of money in becoming a member of the exclusive nuclear club. What kind of advantage will they each see in giving the weapons up (destroying them or giving them over to an international authority)? The only possibility (and this is so remote as to be more laughable than realistic) I can see for the real movement toward disarmament of the world is for the United States to virtually unilaterally give 90 percent of its nuclear arsenal to a new international authority comprised of scientists from around the world (remember, the authority would not be political, and so would not be comprised of a scientist from each country, but comprised of the most qualified experts in nuclear sciences in the entire world, no matter where they're from). This act would prove American sincerity in disarming the world; this would be a first step in a long process of disarming the entire world. (By the way, the international authority would have to assume the quasi-police powers the U.S. now has, at least in the WMD realm. This means the authority would have the responsibility to use nuclear weapons against a nuclear agressor, in the defence of the world community. This is the only way such a plan could possibly work. No country is going to give up its weapons when extreme vulnerability is the direct consequence!) The international authority idea is admittedly unrealistic, but no more unrealistic than the idea that the world can survive without a horrendous nuclear exchange for the next 200 years - in light of the developments of the last twenty.

Answer 3

Unilateral disarmament has never brought peace in the history of the world. In fact, it invites war and conflict because it shows weakness and unwillingness to fight.

As for "the whole world" being against anybody who violates laws or agreements or anything, that simply is not true. Sure, they might agree to sign a stern letter, but they will not wage war, and probably would not even support sanctions if it caused them any economic hardship.

History is replete with examples showing this would be a policy doomed to failure and tragedy.

Answer 4

1- If all other nations agreed in doing so, the US wouldn't.
2- Nuclear bombs are not essential to defense. If they were, every single country should be able to have its own athomic bomb and, by the terms of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty, they art not.
3- If Korea, Pakistan, India and China have developed nuclear weapons, that's good. Otherwise, who would save the rest of the world from America's megalomania?

Answer 5

The threat of nuclear power has kept most of those countries safe since WW2. Without the nuclear deterrant, the US and Russia would have squared off by now for sure!

Answer 6

Let's suppose that Pakistan loses all their nukes, but India keeps one or two. What is stopping India from nuking Pakistan?

It's called detante.

Answer 7

Because, how can the US or any country with nukes bully the countries without nukes.... unless we have them in the first place.

Answer 8

A very naive question.

How about everyone who has a gun get rid of them too? Wouldn't that make the world safer?

until a bad person keeps there's that is.


Sorry to burst your little bubble

Answer 9

we have been reducing our neuclear weapons drasticly along with russia thanks to ronald reagan,george bush senior continued with this and so did clinton and bush jr. what do you think all of the fuss is about with japan pakistan india etc. all have it but have agreed not to produce weapons of mass destruction..that is why everyone is pissed..but clinton was the only one to give the technology "our secrets" to a rouge nation,figure that out! now all of these countries have open inspections that can move freely in and out of all sights..iran and no.ko. refuse to do so ..

Answer 10

US won't do away with theirs as they would be defenceless against rogue countries developing their own and attacking. They keep them as a deterrant, and to show how big and tough they are

Answer 11

Because all it takes is one leader not to do so and that leader would rule the world. Your question seems to assume that all people are good. All people are not good, history is rife with evil men who tied to rule the world.