Nuclear Weapons, who has a right?

Question

Morally what is the difference between an Iran or a North Korea or a Russia or a Great Britain or a United States owning nuclear weapons?


Why is one nation superior over another, some bad guys own these weapons. Why do we have a right to say that you cannot have one but I can?

Answer 1

Technically no nation has the right to tell another nation which weapons it can and cannot have. Iran is a sovereign state, much the same as the United States. In practice though, some nations are far more powerful than others and will impose their will on others. This is an inescapable fact of history and has existed constantly since the very first nation-states.

The United States and many European countries would justify trying to block an Iranian nuclear weapons program because of the unstable leadership of Iran and a feeling that any country (other than Israel) in the Middle East having nuclear weapons would further destabilise the region.

Whatever moral or political standpoint Western leaders actually take though, there's very little that they can actually do short of major sanctions (which Russia and China are very nlikely to agree to) or all-out war (which, unless Iran attacks someone else first, would be a grave violation of internaitonal law).

Answer 2

The U.S. does not have a right to say who can and cant have these weapons. Although with its massive influence in the world(big fish in a big pond) & its foreign policy, it dictates to other countries what it considers is right and if they don't listen, it can then go to the UN for sanctions & embargoes against countries or threaten them politically one way or another.

Nuclear weapons have been beneficial to the world in the last 60 years as they are the main reason there has not been another catastrophic World War since they were invented, and the MAD(mutually assured destruction) premise came into scope.
So nuclear weapons do serve a purpose, protecting the sovereignty of nations, and as long as they are never used in anger.

Unfortunately, countries like North Korea do not have the background/histotry to show they are stable politically, and would therefore show restraint in their use. Launching long range missiles over Japan to show their capability does not help their cause. Whereas a country say like Australia where I am from would probably raise no argument from the world's leaders if they were to acquire nuclear weapons(Oz consistently votes against).

Also, say North Korea does acquire the capability, then the stakes are raised much higher on the diplomatic tables of the future. North Korea has a history of threats against other countries.

* N.K. having these weapons can only be a bad idea and may lead to more problems in later years for that area, or the world.

* Morally the U.S.A. should not tell other countries what to do. Although a united front of countries via the United Nations should definitely do so.

* Realistically the U.S.A. being a superpower has a lot of influence in the U.N. and may just get its wish.

Answer 3

You have a point - but I believe if you could ask every person on this planet, which country(ies) would be likely to use nuclear weapons as an aggressor, Iran and North Korea would top the list as opposed to the US.

Answer 4

Because of the nature of the weapons the fewer there are the better off the world is. These aren't assault weapons. If one of these is sold on the black market it can take out a city. It not a question of who has a right to have them. It's a question of common sense that they be controlled.

Answer 5

i think its that old saying.

"Majority rules"(population wise) think about that, and the capability of a nuclear weapon owned by a smaller nation i.e North Korea, Iran, Egypt etc.

Answer 6

Are you unable to differentiate between rational leaders & psychopaths? Ask an international lawyer about rights (warning: for each lawyer you ask, expect to get at least 3 opinions). It is in our best interest that Iran & N Korea not have nukes. That should be the basis of out foreign policy.

Answer 7

No one should have nuclear weapons, war is not the answer to life's problems.

What ever happened to a little love & compassion toward your fellow man?

Answer 8

If everyone can't have them no one should have them, I agree with you. But it's all about the power, the nations in the U.N. (which is illegal by our laws anyway) are controlled by it and if they don't want other countries to have nukes, they just shut them down. It's all a bunch of stupidity.

Answer 9

Might is right. The Mighty are not tolerating others to go nuclear and are forcing their dictum on one pretext or the other.

Answer 10

It is not about a moral issue. It is about a self preservation issue. Those with the most power must preserve themselves, and if those who do not have the power others do try to gain that power, they must be shut down.