so.... is it ok for the usa to have nuclear power and weapons and to want other nations not to have them?

Question

I am against nuclear weapons but it bothers me to think the USA thinks it is reasonable to have nuclear weapons and to expect other nations not to have them.Is it logical to have a dirty back yard of your own and at the same time to complain about your neighbors back yard?

Answer 1

Other countries do have them, but not as many as America. I think because we play such a prominant role in the UN, we have taken on the role of policing the other countries of the world. To do this, we need a leverage over them, hence the nuclear weapons. I disagree with this practice too, but then, I'm not the one in charge either. Some day the plan will back fire for us, watch

Answer 2

Well there are certain neighbors that cannot be trusted. Certain countries I trust, including the US. France, Germany, Britain, Israel, etc. None of those countries will use it, because they know the consequences. Mutually Assured Destruction.

The biggest problem right now after North Korea (not sure of the gravity of the situation, its hard to tell) isn't Iran. Iran doesn't even have the bomb yet. Its Pakistan.

Pakistan has nuclear bombs. Something like 7. Musharaf isn't a very strong leader, and he has had 2 assisination attemps so far on his life while in office. Al Quaeda operate in Pakistan. If they take over, they have the bomb.

See what I mean?

Answer 3

Here's the reality: the US used to have 70,000 nuclear weapons, back during the Cold War. By the end of the cold war, it was down to 23,000. Production of new nuclear weapons ended in 1989. By 2001, it was down to 9,600.

The US has been dismantling its nuclear stockpiles and gradually eliminating them. So has the former USSR. The fewer nuclear weapons the better. Yes, we still have them. But while we're getting rid of them, there's nothing gained by others starting to build them. Nuclear weapons are a nightmare, not just in the immediate effects of a hostile use, but in the lingering aftereffects. The US has used them, once, to end World War II. Hopefully they'll never be used again. With unstable regimes like Iran and North Korea, nuclear weapons in their hands pose a real threat to their neighbors. All nations should be eliminating nuclear weapons. The US is working towards that goal. Others should also.

Answer 4

I believe some nations should have them, Such as the ones that already do... but some of the other Nations such as North Korea, have not had them for a terribly long time, do not know much about them, and do not have a chain of command. They have one leader, that can just randomly decide the answer to 'What should I do with my new nuclear power today?' and act on it when he wishes without anyone to object. Places such as the U.S. which is a Federal Republic, the U.K. which is a Constitutional Monarchy-Minor Republic, U.R.R. (Russia) which is a Federal Republic/Post-Communism Transitional Democracy all have the safe chain of command. North Korea however, could be extremely dangerous.

Answer 5

I was in the Navy on a submarine that had nuclear missiles and I have been trained on the radiological effects of a nuclear weapon, so what I'm telling you is what I will tell my son when he is old enough. Nuclear weapons are the scariest things that have ever been conceived by human beings. We went for decades stockpiling them against the Soviet Union as a deterrent measure (If we have them too, then maybe they won't use theirs). There are enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world a hundred times over, so what possible reason could anyone have to develop one now? To destroy. That is the only reason why anyone could want to bring another nuke into the world. They want to destroy something on a catastrophic scale. That is why I don't think that it is OK.

Answer 6

OK, which condition would the USA be safer under? And in most danger under? If we were the only nation to have them. If we and England and Australia were the only nations that had them. If we, Australia, England, and Israel were the only nations that had them. If the same nations that have them today, have them. If the same nations today and Iran had them. Can't you understand that we are talking about national security and not somebody's dirty back yard?

Answer 7

There are numerous reasons. Here we go: 1) Ours are for deterrence of enemies 2) North Korea and Iran are both led by madmen who have no one within their countries to stop them 3) We invented the nuclear bomb so why shouldn't we have them 4) We have to protect all of Europe, so our possessing nukes helps keep them safe and avoids the 2 messes of the last century and my favorite 5) because we can. Besides we are not telling Russia, China, Pakistan, India, France, England, or Israel to give up theirs. We are enforcing the nuclear non-proliferation treaties.

Answer 8

What makes me wonder is why most everyone is bit*ching about the USA's nukes (boohoo...bad USA) but little talk about Russia's arsenal (which is just as big as the USA's) or China's growing nuclear stockpiles?

As long as there is at least two nations out there with nukes and as long as the knowledge of creating nukes is out there, it never fails to remind your prospective enemies that you can exterminate them if they decide to use nukes. Its called deterrence (the only real use the USA has for their weapons now).

Answer 9

the rustic isn't presently making nuclear weapons. the rustic is definitely lowering the kind of nuclear weapons it has. You heard incorrect. the rustic has not threatened different international places with them. the only threats made became to the U.S. that became the chilly conflict.

Answer 10

It's not a yes or no answer.

It depends on the country who's trying to get them. What countries are suitable for nuclear weapons? Only those who have no intention of using them on another nation unless their nation is attacked by nukes first.