Why is the UK and US not getting rid of their nuclear weapons, when they expect others to?

Answer 1

There is a tension between rhetoric and reality, and if it looks, tastes, feels and smells like hypocrisy, well, guess what?. What, do you believe those official policy speeches and such? My, my, we are jejeune in here.

It didn't start off as bad as it is these days. US talk of nonproliferation used to be accompanied by action, albeit perhaps of the token variety. There used to be a slow process of disarmament, painstaking and minutely enforced agreements with the Soviet Union and then the Russian Federation to reduce the number of both on-alert and stored nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has stalled or rolled back much of this progress, starting with the American unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty. The Bush foreign policy appears to be a radical form of anti-internationalism, taking America from its national childhood into its teen years, where they're going to rebel against "society, man" and all the "dumb rules" and "f--- international law - what are you going to do about it, huh? FU if you think we're going to keep our word and stick to our treaty obligations, suckers." It's a policy that matches his highbrow style of political rhetoric and his Yalie elitist vocabulary and diction. I'm sure his post-Presidential career will be to lead a Toastmasters group in East Cupcake, Illinois.

In any event, it does intensify the hypocrisy when the Americans are talking about starting nuclear testing again (small nukes, or "micronukes," mind, so that makes it OK - we're going to use them tactically, not strategically, so don't worry about it, wink, wink). I'm not convinced his "win back the alienated Republican base" strategy won't be to drop H-bombs on Bikini Island again.

Apparently, both Iran and North Korea are calling the Americans' bluff, realizing they're so bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan that they can't even deliver empty threats or a stick of chewing gum, let alone a credible military deterrent. As Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings noted, North Korea watched how Pakistan was treated after they announced they had the Bomb, and they've apparently decided that the juice is worth the squeeze. Iran will watch what happens to North Korea, and when Pyongyang survives the sanctions and comes up for air a little battered and bruised, but with a seat at the Big Boys table, they'll make their little announcement to the world and dig in for the long haul.

Answer 2

Did you even research the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The circumstances leading to that were desperate. A full scale invasion of Japan was to begin. An invasion that would have cost 1 million American lives, 10 million Japanese lives and 5 million of our allies including other countries in Asia. Mind you, as in all wars, the civilian casualties would have made up most of that figure. Had the bombs that killed under 200,000 people not been dropped, so much more bloodshed would have occurred, the war would have lasted for far more years. So many lives were saved by those nuclear weapons. Your premise is flawed, the US used nukes for the most logical and desperate of purposes. North Korea is developing them to destroy South Korea because they are a much more successful country. North Korea is a rouge nation, they aren't like the US was in WW2 which made a logical decision to use nukes. Iran is another example, their leader said the goal is to wipe Israel off the map. How can you trust countries that won't be responsible with nuclear weapons the same as countries like the US, Russia, China and India which have only developed those weapons to halt a conventional war and for deterrence purposes?

Answer 3

The US wouldn't give up its nuclear weapons in a month of Sundays because if they did it would leave them wide open to nuclear attack by certain "rogue" states. This would mean no immediate response.
If the UK got rid of its nukes then i doubt that it would have the clout to remain a permanent member of the security council.

Answer 4

It's not about setting a good example, it's about deterrence. In order for deterrence to succeed you have to have at least a certain minimum of weapons. The policy of non - proliferation is to keep other countries from getting nuclear weapons. It worked for 30 or 40 years, now N. Korea has upset the apple cart. Their leader is mentally unstable in some ways and may sell nuclear bomb materials to terrorists. The nuclear nations need a new policy to contain guys like him. Once a country gets nuclear weapons capability, they don't give it up. Why? Prestige, bargaining power, and defense.

Answer 5

As they invented them I can't understand why they have allowed any other country to have them. Why didn't they take out an international patent? You can't afford to let rogue/unstable governments have them for obvious reasons. With nuclear weapons you don't get a second chance, you have to work on prevention. But then, I don't believe for one minute that you don't realise that. 'Arwens' naive attitude is even more dangerous than terrorists with a nuke.

Answer 6

Racist boy above me! If the Americans weren't so belligerent they wouldn't be so scared of anyone else handling bombs. Fact is, UK still thinks it's 'Great' Britain and wants a bit of an imperialistic advantage, while Americans think they have a 'manifest destiny' and are kindly the 'world's policeman'.

Answer 7

And all the Infantry grunts should be running around with unloaded weapons. As for me I'd rather be a live hypocrite than a dead good guy.

Answer 8

This is what happens when someone sleeps through their history classes in a pot-indiced haze. Pay attention: The US has destroyed over half of it's nuclear arsenel over the past 25 years. Way to keep up there sparky!!

Answer 9

Trust me....you DONT want the arabs to get nuclear technology. Or the Koreans either.

Answer 10

I agree.. the US cannot dictate what other countries do, we have nuclear weapons and have used them - unfortunately that is a question we are never going to be able to answer. The US is not holier than thou... we can't expect to have our freedoms to do whatever we want - have weapons, create wars, and expect nobody else too. I don't know what the logic behind it is... but whatever.....