why should not a country make atom bombs?

Answer 1

It is hypocrtical for one state which possesses such weapons to tell another state they cannot. However, in the case of unstable regimes it would be foolish and dangerous to allow them to develope weapons of mass destruction without making attempts to stop them. There are states which for one reason or another are more likely to use such weapons if they possess them.

Answer 2

Because some people are so obsessed with destroying another race or religion they are willing to sacrifice themselves and the world in order to do it. Or are so deluded by their own rhetoric that they actually believe they can survive a nuclear war. Not to mention many countries do not take the necessary steps to secure their conventional weapons let alone nuclear weapons. The terrorist attacks in the US, Japan, Britain, Israel, and even in Iraq and Afghanistan could then be easily replaced with nuclear blasts. And contrary to some popular belief this is a global problem since radiation doesn't really care about customs or national boundaries.

Answer 3

If your country has a legitimate reason to build one such as a nuke armed hostile neighbor then build them. If it is for national pride do not as the nuke is a very expensive dust collector and puts your country on other nuke powers target list which they otherwise wouldn't do. Their is also treaty obligations as most countries agreed not to make such weapons and signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. If you break this treaty your bound to end up with painful economic sanctions and suffer isolation from most other countries. So you have to weigh the pros and cons of the bomb what does having this very expensive and controversial weapon really give you versus what the other countries will do in response to you having it.

Answer 4

The means to real peace. No government admits any more that
it keeps an army to satisfy occasionally the desire for conquest.
Rather the army is supposed to serve for defense, and one invokes the
morality that approves of self-defense. But this implies one's own
morality and the neighbor's immorality; for the neighbor must be
thought of as eager to attack and conquer if our state must think of
means of self-defense. Moreover, the reasons we give for requiring
an army imply that our neighbor, who denies the desire for conquest
just as much as does our own state, and who, for his part, also keeps
an army only for reasons of self-defense, is a hypocrite and a
cunning criminal who would like nothing better than to overpower a
harmless and awkward victim without any fight. Thus all states are
now ranged against each other: they presuppose their neighbor's bad
disposition and their own good disposition. This presupposition,
however, is inhumane, as bad as war and worse. At bottom, indeed, it
is itself the challenge and the cause of wars, because, as I have
said, it attributes immorality to the neighbor and thus provokes a
hostile disposition and act. We must abjure the doctrine of the army
as a means of self-defense just as completely as the desire for
conquests.

And perhaps the great day will come when people,
distinguished by wars and victories and by the highest development of
a military order and intelligence, and accustomed to make the
heaviest sacrifices for these things, will exclaim of its own free
will, "We break the sword," and will smash its entire military
establishment down to its lowest foundations. Rendering oneself
unarmed when one had been the best-armed, out of a height of feeling
-- that is the means to real peace, which must always rest on a peace
of mind; whereas the so-called armed peace, as it now exists in all
countries, is the absence of peace of mind. One trusts neither
oneself nor one's neighbor and, half from hatred, half from fear,
does not lay down arms. Rather perish than hate and fear, and twice
rather perish than make oneself hated and feared -- this must someday
become the highest maxim for every single commonwealth.

Our liberal representatives, as is well known, lack the time
for reflecting on the nature of man: else they would know that they
work in vain when they work for a "gradual decrease of the military
burden." Rather, only when this kind of need has become greatest
will the kind of god be nearest who alone can help here. The tree of
war-glory can only be destroyed all at once, by a stroke of
lightning: but lightning, as indeed you know, comes from a cloud --
and from up high.

(translation by W. Kaufmann, transcribed by T. Rourke. File archived
at Lord Etrigan's Nietzsche site...
http://members.aol.com/lrdetrigan/index4.html Accept no imitations!)

Answer 5

Because they not should learn proper English.

Because atom bombs kill people, maybe...

Answer 6

They have no purpose other than to wipe out thousands of innocents, to burn away civilians and melt survivors from the inside out. As far as I'm concerned, no country should have them.

Answer 7

Um, perhaps they will use one? That seems like a good reason to keep them out of the hands of most countries.

Answer 8

I think that if the USA has them, then everyone should have them too. In case your country finds some oil in the ground and the USA invades you to try and steal it.

Answer 9

There are also 'scalar weapons'-they're on the Internet.

Answer 10

Dumb question