Would Britain, Sweden and Iran be safer with nuclear weapons of their own?

Question

Please answer with a consistent single standard answer for all countries and an explanation why.

Answer 1

Britan.. Yes, Cos we are a great nation
Sweeden.. Yes, cos they gave us safe cars, so their nukes will be safe as well. And they will have their lights on, even in the day time. So we can see them comming from the sky.

Iran.. NO, are you joking. Any Country with laws based on Religion alone shouldnt even have knives.

Answer 2

Why would you want to put a single standard answer to a separated question, clearly Britain has had nuclear capability for quite a long time, Sweden is a neutral country, and has no desire to possess nuclear weapons of any type.
Iran would like to gain nuclear capability at the expense of her near neighbours, the unstable nature of the middle east is not the best place to place such weaponry, either in Iran or IRAQ OR Syria.

Answer 3

A year ago I was completley against nuclear weapons, but after having studied the cold war at great length my opinion changed.
The ownership of nuclear weapons still scares me. Britian has nuclear weapons, and seeing as that is the nation I am apart of it is really the only one I can talk about.

We have no right to deny other countries these weapons, we have them, and we'd be fools if we stood up and said the only reason we have them is because we're right.

I know alot of people think it's dangerous for Iran to have this kind of technology, but we have no right to lay down the law for another country. Nor can we pass judgement.

'If your slate is clean then you can throw stones...If your slate is not, then leave well alone.'

I think I'm pretty safe in saying our slate is not clean, by any stretch of the imadgination.

Answer 4

As the United States has basically 'set the standard' with her pre-emptive stance regarding any nation they choose for whatever reason they choose, each and every country in the world would be safer with nuclear weapons of their own.And Britain already has nukes.
Nukes are good for two reasons. Protection and for the prolifererators to be considered part of the world of BIG BAD WOLVES.

Answer 5

I feel that possession of nuclear weapons is no guarantee for safety. The weapon has been used once. Possibility of counterattack cannot be ruled out. Using a nuclear weapon is inhuman and en-block murder of innocent people. Accident in a nuclear establishment may have its own problem. Let us protect humanity for our survival. My answer to your question is 'No'.

Answer 6

Does anyone know what these weapons are good for? Why would any country want them. They cost billions to develop, billions to maintain, and billions to store and dispose of when they get old. If they are ever used and anyone survives the fallout, it will take billions to repair the mess. If there is anyone left to pay the bills or do the work.

Answer 7

Britain has got nuclear weapons,and yes we are safer as a result.

Answer 8

Britain already has a nuclear deterrent and is safe in that knowledge
Sweden is neutral and therefore does not need a nuclear deterrent or has any intention of having one
Iran would be actually be inviting potential disaster by having a nuclear deterrent

Answer 9

Erm yeh, so let's borrow them from North Korea, the U.S and the mirage of weapons in Iraq.

Answer 10

Sweden:don't need nuclear.
Britain:needs nucear weapon(s) of future attack from Iraq
USA:already has nuclear weapon(s)
Phillipines:Protected by USA
North Korea:needs nuclear weapon(s) of future attack from South Korea

and...

Russia:needs atleast 5-8 nuclear weapon(s) of future attack of England, Spain, Iraq, and 65% possibility of Demoin,Israel.