If Britain is going to spend 3 billion on a nuclear program how can we ask n. korea?

Question

to halt all nuclear programs? Is it because they (n.korea) are untrustworthy and may use it in war? Well aren't we(brits) the ones that are untrustworthy for going to war for a false and illegal reason? And who dropped the last nuclear bomb? Maybe I'm thick as pigsh1t because I find this hypocritical

Answer 1

I don't know how thick pig $hit is but to answer your question-Britain is a democracy and the people elect their rulers, more or less. The nut job that is the dictator of North Korea is definitely almost as mad as Adolph was. I do not believe the Brits would elect someone like that. Britain already has nuclear weapons but NEVER has used them. The USA dropped two atomic bombs, one on Hiroshima, Japan and one on Nagasaki, Japan to end WW2. They NEVER have used nuclear weapons again although they were the ONLY country that had them for several years after WW2. They dropped leaflets and warned the Japanese government of the atomic bombs but they were so fanatical at the time that they did not believe us. It took two bombs before their surrender. Had we had to invade Japan, the estimates are that the allies would suffer a million casualities. Japan was so fanatical that they would not surrender and they even had Kamikazi pilots so their casualities would have been many thousands more than the 2 bombs caused. The war in Iraq is not false and illegal although what almost the entire world thought was wrong. If you were aware of these facts and still have this question, then I agree that you are pretty thick. If my answer has enlightened you, then so be it. You also need to realize that the USA not only has our welfare at heart but all of our friends in the world also. (what friends we have remaining that do not believe all the lies and half truths being circulated around. the world by our enemies and their supporters)HERE IS WHAT MOST OF THE WORLD THOUGHT ABOUT IRAQ AND THE WMDs BEFORE WE WENT INTO IRAQ:::::WMD
"One Way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of
mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President
Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.We want to
seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the
risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons
against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18,
1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." -
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution
and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on
suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl
Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction
technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the
weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and
palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports
indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to
pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is
doubtless using the cover of an illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that
will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bus h, Signed by Sen.
Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace
and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations. "We have
known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass
destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that
Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he
has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare
capabilities. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter
and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore,
Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons
of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that
Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he
has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare
capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen.
Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop
nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also
should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10,
2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN
resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological
weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D,
CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein
has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery
capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and
will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10,
2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has,
and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of
weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-if
necessary-to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of
mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F.
Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator,
leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so
consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the
threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry
(D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Source(s):

Answer 2

In an ideal world the Nuke would never have been invented and then no-one would have it....however in reality a number of countries do now have it and due to the fact that there has been a stand off between east and west for 50 years where both sides could wipe out the other, its kept the world from a third world war.

No-body wanted to start as they would get wiped out themselves.

Things have now changed and the old nuclear powers are reducing their arsenals and having regular treaties to try and de-scale the nuclear stockpile.

At the same time we have a number of un-stable countries with very odd dictatorial regimes, who are often linked to terror organisations, who are trying to obtain these weapons as fast as possible. Often whilst their people starve.

Call me cynical but that cannot be good for world safety.

A nuclear weapon several times as powerful as the one which blew up Hiroshima can now be contained in a suitcase.

Do you really think its a good idea that the North Koreans (who maintain a 50 year old declared war against their neighbours) or the Iranians (who have vowed to "wipe Israel off the face of the earth") should get one of those?

Yes the allies used their new bomb in 1945 and it ended a horrible war and saved potentially 2 million casualties in an invasion of Japan.

What it also did was to ensure that for the next 60 years it was never used again because we all saw how horrible it was.

Why now do emerging countries want to have this horror quite so badly if not to use it to threaten people?

Look at Pakistan and India. Both countries with huge poverty and homelessness and starvation, yet they spend obscene amounts of their GDP on nuclear weapons which they stack up pointed at each other in an areas the eqiuvalent of Wales, where they regularly exchange artillery rounds.

One itchy trigger finger at the wrong time and its the end of the world as we know it.

Therefore your argument which seems to say "if we have nukes, then we should also let the nut jobs have nukes as well" seems reckless.

BirdsnakeCatherine - Leave it out with the Limey insults please. There are more than a few of us who have taken bullets for you guys, and no-one has stood more solidly alongside the U.S....even when you were buying bullets for the IRA.

Answer 3

Well, at least you're man enough to admit that you may be thick.
Guess what? The war wasn't illegal. Guess what else? The reason North Korea is not allowed to develop nuclear power is because of what's known as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Not allowed to have them. No exceptions. Period.
Yes, the US used an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, we did so to END the war, not to START one!

Answer 4

Because Korea has made it very clear that they are not only trying to produce nuclear energy, they are trying to produce weapons. They are not being secretive about producing missles and testing them and have openly bragged about producing an A-bomb. Britain probably has a clearly defined plan of action for the establishment of nuclear energy. Whether it is true or not, it is the way that they are appearing on paper and presenting themselves to the UN that is keeping them away from the watchful eye of the microscope. Plus, they are a strong ally to the United States and most of the UN is influenced by the power of the US (for obvious monetary and strategic purposes).

Not saying it is right. It's a matter or presentation and lack of defiance that gives them the unquestionable ability to do so.

Also, no one has mentioned that the UK has been in the forefront of producing hydrogen energy. No one seems to have any problem with that, even though transportation and utilization of hydrogen can be extremely volatile. Not to mention, we don't really know what types of hydrogen-powered weapons are being produced.

Answer 5

Greebo
If the only countries that are allowed nuclear weapons are the permanent members of the UN security council why did the french and the British help Israel to get nuclear weapons and why was bush in India openly endorsing India's nuclear programme, if a nuclear war is to break out it will most likely be between India and Pakistan

Answer 6

Yes, there is a lot of hypocrisy and double standards. They say might is right.
Greebo is sleeping, USA is the only country that has already used it. Stay in denial dumbo.
Don't you know the satanic politics that Britishers played in the 1900's and the other civilized nation like Germany also did the satanic rituals to the Jews. come into reality and drop the cloak of niceness because you are not nice just hypocrite.

Answer 7

When your stomach is full,naturally you forget hunger pains. If your neighbor's hair is being shaved,prepare your head with soap.WHY should other nations posses Nuclear and others not? Others also want to protect their nations just like them.WHO doesn't need energy? Make the world a cheaper place to live.

Answer 8

the fact is the north koreans are will use this weapon as a bargaining chip to get aid and intimidate countrys around them if theres any one that is gonna use the next nuclerar weapons it will be on the usa on iran there setting up for it and they will find an excuse theres alot more info you need to look into that you dont hear in mainstream media look up terrorstorm on google video it will tell you what you wanna know or loose change.

Answer 9

I think we should all invest in nuclear weapons. Not only can it be good for the economy... but it might promote a better space programme when the nukes are upgraded to be space based weapons...!!!

Answer 10

We don't use our nuclear weapons as a bargaining tool.
Tinpot dictators like Kim Jong Il do.

Answer 11

we can make em, cause we aren't likely to use them

versus N.Korea is insane and will most likely nuke someone (s.korea probably), and offer them for sale to highest bidder (terriorists opportunity).


there is a HUGE difference of the mental stability of the Britain leaders and military versus N.Korea.