The U.S. has nuclear capabilities should other countries be able to pursue the development of the same?

Question

Knowing that the U.S. already has long-range nuclear weapons,and energy capabilities,do you believe that other countries should be denied,throughsanctions,militaryand/or political pressure,the right to develop the same for their country?

Answer 1

Consider this:

We accused (falsely) Sadaam Hussein of having WMDs, so we invaded Iraq.

North Korea not only has WMDs but they are making sure EVERYONE knows they have WMDs. The US isn't even considering invading North Korea.

That dynamic is more than enough incentive for any nation to begin developing nuclear weapons regardless of sanctions or political pressure.

I wouldn't deny anyone the right to defend themselves against the sociopathic aggression of a retard like George W. The funny thing is that Bush most likely doesn't even realize that his own actions have done more to encourage nuclear proliferation than anything else in the last fifty years.

Answer 2

The argument can be made that the US has already been there and done that and that other countries should learn from its mistakes. Look at the cold war: the US and USSR were on the brink of nuclear war several times and it did no one any good. For nuclear weapons, I don't think anyone should have the capability.

I do believe that every country should be able to pursue nuclear power as it is a proven way to generate electricity without fossil fuels; however, the problem comes in trusting countries in only pursuing power rather than weapons capabilities. The processing required for weapons grade is FAR greater than that for power (85+% for weapon grade vs. 2-3% for power) and requires much more effort and material, making it unlikely in most cases, but the potential for dirty bombs is still possible.

While I do believe other countries besides the US technically should be able to pursue nuclear capabilities, I understand the hesitancy many feel in allowing this to occur. The problem I have with the US being the source of this, though, is that it's currently the only country that has used nuclear weapons in a non-test environment to kill other people. Perhaps this gives it more credibility since it has experience, but it also looks like they don't want any competition given that they won't dispose of their own nuclear arsenal.

That said, thumbs up for nuclear power, thumbs down for nuclear weapons.

Answer 3

nope. there is no need for nuclear weapon development. most countries that currently own them are stable enough to never use them. (USA, Russian, UK, etc.) Pakistan and india might, but its unlikely and to late to do anything about that anyways.
countries like n. korea and iran, as well as someothers, would like nothing more then be able to drop nukes anywhere they want. and their leaders arent stable enough to trust with that amount of power. north korea would probably use nuclear weapons if they were losing a conventional war. iran would probably do pre-emptive strikes.
developing nuclear technology for energy is an acceptable goal. many countries have already offered iran technology, equipment, and technicians. iran turned them down. they dont want peaceful nuclear power to benifit their citizens. they had the offers and turned them down.

Answer 4

No. We have had nuclear weapons since WWII, and we have shown that we won't use it irresponsibly. Now don't give me any of that b.s that we used it in Japan when we shouldn't have, that is an entirely different subject. But some of these countries that are producing nuclear weapons can't stand the United States, and they wouldn't mind launching those weapons at us or at one of our allies. Keep in mind, nuclear energy and nuclear weapons requires different materials and grades of plutonium

Answer 5

Mutually Assured Destruction. Why would a nation nuke another country that has nukes? And if they attacked another nation without them, there would be a world wide response to that. I don't think many nations would take that chance. What is the point of doing something that will definitely put your power in significant jeopardy?

That being said, I think it is hypocritical that we demand other nations to stop their nuclear programs while we continue ours. To be a true global society, we need to stop asserting our dominance over other nations. It is clearly doing nothing more than inflaming the emotions of the rest of the world.

Answer 6

I believe if you check your history Russia, China, Pakistan, India and others have nuclear. Some countries should not be allowed to have nukes because their leaders are crazy. Example: The president of Iran was giving a speech at a university in Iran, students started giving a less than favorable response to him, he started chanting praises to himself about himself. Iran focus news is my source. Anyone seen as a dissident in Iran is given a trial of sorts and hung. This is sane? People must agree with the president of Iran at all times or die. I am not interested in this kind of life thank you, nor is any other American. We must voice our opinion of the day or feel like we are dieing.

Answer 7

Sure, they have the ‘right’ to do whatever they want, just as other countries have the ‘right’ to sanction them. Its funny how most of the countries that are demanding the ‘right’ to develop nuclear weapons don’t provide even basic ‘human rights’ to their own people.

I think in your question, the usage of the word, “right”, is being abused. But, then again, I suppose that’s your right.

Answer 8

I know only one country which used "nookular" weapons against civilian polulation during second world war. We are telling others not to have them because they are mad! Who was mad in the first place? Re India and Pakistan, they are more clever than Americans and wont use against one another. They didnt some 3 years ago. And they wont in the future but US or her allies (gangs) WILL use them again.
I suppose Iran must have one in hand not to use but to deter other who may use against Iran.
Its like me telling others not to adopt any bad habits like smoking whilst I carry on smoking!

Answer 9

No I don't, but only if those countries have never had any ties to terrorist groups or extremists whithin their country. The U. S. A. promotes peace and democracy around the world; do these countries?

Answer 10

No, only President Bush should be allowed to pick and choose. Take India for example, they are a non-signatory to the non proliferation treaty and working on thermonuclear weapons (hydrogen bombs - the big 'uns), our President Bush is working with them on that nuclear stuff that is far too complicated for most Americans (even those who can actually pronounce nuclear). It all depends on who the proliferator is.... Cleary, from the recent past of our President and Commander in Chief's decisions, we should just aquiesce to His Deciderations.