other countires are not even allowed to have nuclear power stations and yet u.k is updateing it's nuclear submarine missiles and build 20 extra nuclear power stations?so what is this ,one law for the good and and none for the nazi's and it's allies?
2006-12-04 05:15:54 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
have you ever heard of 21 st century colonialism,well that's what the new world order is about, invade and take over a countries natural resources by bully them first then classing them as an axis of evil, if these soverghn countires had ways to defend it self it would, but the colonials u.s and it's allies don't want these countires to be able to defend themselves,iraq is one very good example, stealing thier oil, opressing thier ppl, destroying thier economy, and putting in a puppet government in power which hides iraq's oil revenue abroad.
2006-12-05 03:37:30 · answer #1 · answered by the_reporter 2 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Heh, well there are many restrictions in effect. For example, Finland is not allowed to have any Submarines, and there a cap on how many we can have serving in active duty.
So, these things aren't restricted to only nuclear weapons- though I am not sure, if we agreed to forego nuclear capacity also, when we sued for peace with the Allies and the USSR... Though, if I remember correctly only Britain formally declared war against us besides the USSR.
2006-12-04 13:22:40 · answer #2 · answered by dane 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Britain is bound by both the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Agreement. It would be a violation of those agreements for Britain to test nuclear weapons, or participate in the spread of nuclear weapon technology to countries that do not already possess it.
Your question, though, seems to be in reference to Iran and North Korea, both of which are seeking to develop nuclear weapons. I understand you to be asking why the United States and the European Union are so opposed to nuclear technology in Iran and North Korea, and not opposed to the same technology elsewhere.
The answer is that any nuclear technology held by Iran and North Korea is viewed as a serious threat by the US and the EU (as well as Japan, in the case of N. Korea). Iran is considered by many to be an enemy of the US and Israel, and North Korea could be considered an enemy of the US, Japan, and South Korea. There are legal ways (i.e, through the United Nations) to put pressure on nations to curb a whole range of behaviors. In this case, there is enough global interest to get Iran and North Korea to end their nuclear development that high-level steps have been taken to push them in that direction.
There is wide-spread disagreement about the effectiveness of many measures taken (such as inspections and sanctions).
2006-12-04 13:57:54 · answer #3 · answered by Robert S 1 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Yeah, it's so unfair! Like I should have the keys to your house, because if you have them then I should, too, right? And your bank account numbers, too. What? There's one set of rules for you and one for the rest of us? What are you, a 'nazi' or 'it's allies'?
Grow up. If you can't understand the difference between law-abiding and law-enforcing countries and the ones who would see you dead in a heartbeat (yes, your friends in the countries that the U.K. is protecting you from) then maybe you should go to one of those countries. We'll look for you in the orange jumpsuit on the news.
2006-12-04 13:27:12 · answer #4 · answered by Mitch 5 · 3⤊ 5⤋
I would much rather have the good ol' Brits have Nukes than some nutjob in Iran or North Korea have them. The UK has a responsible stable government. Can't say the same for half of the other 3rd world tin pot dictators.
2006-12-04 17:13:07 · answer #5 · answered by Kenneth C 6 · 2⤊ 5⤋
The UK,USA,France,China,Russia had nukes before the non proliferation treaty was signed so they are grand fathered out. Pakistan and India never signed the treaty. Israel hasn't admitted it has nukes and the US protects it from UN inspection. Everyone else has signed the treaty and thus vulnerable to US bulling on the subject of nukes.
2006-12-04 15:12:57 · answer #6 · answered by brian L 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Think of your question and look at it carefully. Would you want say, Saddam or Osama to have nukes?? What about Hitler? Imagine what he could have done with nukes, heck, we would be goose stepping and singing the National Anthem of Germany.
Open your eyes and think before speak, many nations do have nukes, and England, along with the US and some others, are countries that believe in and support human rights and don't have world conquest as their goal like Iran and North Korea.
If you don't like it, you are invited to pack and leave to a third would country of your choice. Might I suggest, German, France or Turkey???
2006-12-04 13:47:01 · answer #7 · answered by bigmikejones 5 · 2⤊ 5⤋
The U.K. uses it's nukes responsibly, and in addition you must be on meth or you would know and use appropriately the term "Nazi".
Look up "Dolt" and you will surely find your picture with the definition.
2006-12-04 13:25:16 · answer #8 · answered by Edward F 4 · 4⤊ 5⤋
it's called one law for the rich and one for the poor, it's a shame realy specialy after the u.k joined in with the u.s to invade iraq on lies, and yet they can update thier arsenal with w.m.d.'s
2006-12-04 13:29:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
The UK is not wish to wipe out a group of people.
Iran was to kill all the Jews.
Are you a Nazi?
2006-12-04 13:41:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋