Why is America complaining about nuclear weapons when we have them ourselves?

Answer 1

Depends on who gets them.

India is a pretty stable, resposible country...so no problem.

Korea?

N. Korea is run by a lunatic.

That's worrisome to say the least.

Iran? A fanatical theocracy with a bomb...GOOD IDEA.

We wouldn't mind if Canada suddenly decided to make nukes.

Answer 2

We had them first and used them before now the world knows how bad they are. Its in the worlds best interest that less responsible countries of the world don't have them. Do you really want to be the victim of a nuke blast. The USA would never shoot a nuke again The ones we have are just defense against the others who would threaten to use them. They know that we have better nukes and would end the world when we retaliate. Our nuke keep all the other nukes in check. Don't concern yourself with why we don't allow other countries to have them. Just be glad that they don't and we do.

Answer 3

Most countries in the world have signed agreements to maintain a certain behavior and position with regards to nuclear weapons. Any breach of those agreements is a valid reason for concern and to be upset, given the severity and importance of the matter.

The USA and other selected countries have the right to possess nuclear weapons. This was stipulated as a result of World War II, and amendments, modifications, etc. have been made through the years updating the terms of the agreements. Although the explanation is extensive, I am going to list the facts which you should know in order to understand the overall situation. Sorry if the following is kind-of long, but it's very valid piece of information:

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is an international treaty, opened for signature on July 1, 1968 to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. 188 sovereign states are parties to the treaty, however, two (India and Pakistan) out of eight confirmed nuclear powers (i.e., those that have openly tested nuclear weapons), and one unconfirmed nuclear power (Israel) have neither signed nor ratified the treaty. Another nuclear power (North Korea) has withdrawn. The treaty was proposed by Ireland, and Finland was the first to sign. In New York City, on May 11, 1995, the parties to the treaty decided by consensus to extend the treaty indefinitely and without conditions.
The treaty is often summarised as having three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.

First pillar: non-proliferation
Five states are permitted by the NPT to own nuclear weapons: France (signed 1992), the People's Republic of China (1992), the Soviet Union (1968; obligations and rights now assumed by Russia), the United Kingdom (1968), and the United States (1968). These were the only states possessing such weapons at the time the treaty was opened to signature, and are also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. These 5 Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) agree not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" technology to other states, and non-NWS parties agree not to seek or develop nuclear weapons.
The 5 NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State. However, these undertakings have not been incorporated formally into the treaty, and the exact details have varied over time. The United States, for instance, has indicated that it may use nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states". The previous United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, has also explicitly invoked the possibility of the use of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states". In January 2006, President Jacques Chirac of France indicated that an incident of state-sponsored terrorism on France could trigger a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue state's" power centers.

Second pillar: disarmament
Article VI and the preamble indicate that the NWS parties pursue plans to reduce and liquidate their stockpiles; Article VI also calls for "...a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." This formal obligation has never been adhered to by the NPT-recognized nuclear weapon states. Many proposals for a complete and universal disarmament tabled at the Conference on Disarmament over the past 3 decades have been rejected under one pretext or the other. The failure of the NPT-recognized nuclear weapon states to comply with their disarmament obligations, and the unconditional indefinite extension of the NPT, has left a simmering discontent among many signatories of the NPT, and a justification for the non-signatories to develop their own nuclear arsenals. It is quite probable that many signatories would eventually become disillusioned and seek nuclear weapons of their own, as is seen in the case of North Korea (that pulled out of NPT) and Iran.
In Article I, the Nuclear Weapon States declare not to "induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to ... acquire nuclear weapons." A preemptive-strike doctrine and otherwise threatening postures can be viewed as induction by non-NWS parties. Iran's ambiguous prevarication with enrichment technology is an indicator of such an induction.
Article X states that any state can withdraw from the treaty if they feel that "extraordinary events", for example a perceived threat, force them to do so. North Korea's withdrawal is a case in point.

Third pillar: the right to peacefully use nuclear technology
Since very few of the nuclear weapons states and states using nuclear reactions for energy generation are willing to completely abandon possession of nuclear fuel, the third pillar of the NPT provides other states with the possibility to do the same, but under conditions intended to make it difficult to develop nuclear weapons.
For some states, this third pillar of the NPT, which allows uranium enrichment for fuel reasons, seems to be a major loophole. However, the treaty gives every state the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and as the commercially popular light water reactor nuclear power station designs use enriched uranium fuel, it follows that states must be allowed to enrich uranium or purchase it on an international market. Peaceful uranium enrichment can arguably be considered a small step away from developing nuclear warheads, and this can be done by withdrawing from the NPT. No state is known to have successfully constructed a nuclear weapon in secret while subjected to NPT inspection.
Countries that have signed the treaty as Non-Nuclear Weapons States and maintained that status have an unbroken record of not building nuclear weapons. In some regions, the fact that all neighbors are verifiably free of nuclear weapons reduces any pressure individual states might feel to build those weapons themselves, even if neighbors are known to have peaceful nuclear energy programs that might otherwise be suspicious. In this, the treaty works as designed.

Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's nuclear regulatory body, has said that if they wanted to, forty countries could develop nuclear bombs.

Answer 4

We have them becasue we developed them. We use them as a deterrant (like most other countrys) but Iran & N. Korea threaten to use them - on us!!! That's why.

Answer 5

do you want the countries that don't live by any rules and hate us, with a weapon that can kill people in the us!

Answer 6

This phenomenon has a name: Double standards.

Answer 7

Hypocritical that's why, if other countries get Nukes then, we can't bully them.

Answer 8

Shhhhh! Th other countries are stupid, it's a secret we are pure but mighty oh and what RED button?

Answer 9

because of our "we want to sell our cake and eat it too" attitude. it got us to #1 country of all time. gotta stick with it. plus we developed nukes to save the world. and did.

Answer 10

Very Very Very good question.