Why is it that the U.S. can have 50,000 nukes but does not want other countries to have them?

Question

doesn't that kind of sound a bit controlling? it's like they want to one day be able to easily control the world. it's hypocrisy.

it just creates more hate from other countries for the u.s. the u.s. now thinks it can police the world, it's that kind of behavior that makes me think they want the world.

i think the solution would be that nobody should have them at all.

Answer 1

Could it be that they don't want to wipe their neighboring countries off the FACE OF THE MAP !!!!?

Answer 2

Each of the super powers do have nuclear weapons, used as a nuclear deterant. The U.S. doesn't want more nuclear weapons to spread. If more countries have it, especially unreponsible and less secure countries, it would be expremely hard to keep count of the nuclear weapons. The it could fall to the wrong hands.
But you have to actually see that the world can't not all have it. One rogue leader could just make one or a terrorist group could also. What took months and millions to make the two atomic bombs that dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it can take a modern terrorist groups to make one in weeks with only a couple thousand dollars and then some if they have the right materials and equipment, they can up to a thermonuclear bomb.
The All of None nuclear weapons policy is ridiculous, it's not a static world were if you do this, this happens. It's not predictable and extremely harsh. Especially with today's situation where Iran is very much making one, a religious country with a hateful agenda to destroy another country as the will of God is not the best place to have nuclear weapons. As Iran can also sell nuclear weapons under the table to other terrorist groups that can carry out their biddings too. Anything can happen. Also, North Korea is actually inclining to sell nuclear componets and materials to many terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, who's very goal is to kill other religious factions of their own and destroy the U.S. Not good if they have the lack moral will and surplus of radical religious backing to use them at this age. Especially if we actually don't have an area to retaliate since terrorist organizations don't usually have a base saying they are there.
Also, I don't think the U.S. has that must nuclear weapons. Even if you put both U.S. and Russia's numbers together.

Answer 3

First, I'd like to register some factual corrections.

--According to the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction), the US currently has 7,000 operational and 3,000 reserve nuclear weapons--just 20 pct of the total cited in the question.

--The US accepts as a matter of treaty obligation the possession of nuclear weapons by the four other members of the UN Security Council, which are Russia, China, France, and the UK. As a practical matter, we have accepted the possession of nukes as well by Israel, Pakistan, and India.

That said, it's responsible to try at all costs to prevent the further spread of these weapons. E.g., the biggest danger of a North Korean nuke isn't that Seoul or Alaska will be incinerated, but rather that terrified Japanese or South Koreans or Taiwanese will decide to go down the same path. Similarly, an Iranian Bomb--whose development is a response to the Israeli and Pakistani nuke stockpiles--would push the Saudis, Turks, and others to develop a deterrent. Moreover, the more countries that have nukes, the more likely it is that another country will use one in a war.

Finally, I don't think there's too much hypocrisy in continuing to maintain a nuclear stockpile while trying to prevent proliferation. First, the US nuclear arsenal has shrunk by more than half since the end of the Cold War. We haven't disarmed, but we are thinning the threat. Second, it just isn't practical to surrender your leverage--in this case the world's largest and most technically advanced nuclear arsenal--during a drawn-out negotiating process. The US record in this arena isn't perfect, but the overall direction--pursued by Republican and Democratic Administrations alike--is the right one.

Answer 4

A) Getting your facts straight would help your argment. The US Nuclear Arsenal is far less than 50,000 nukes. It is probably about 10,656 warheads, including 8,646 strategic nuclear warheads, and 2,010 non-strategic warheads.

B) Where did you get the ridiculious idea fairness is in any way shape or form to politics? or "controling" is bad? This is the real world, not some junior high Model UN.

C) It is not hypocrisy.

The United States Government is not your Daddy. Neither is it your Mommie, the World's Policeman, the Red Cross, the Vatican, Oxfam, or Doctors Without Borders. The job of the United States Government is to protect the United States, by fair means or foul. PERIOD. It is NOT required to be popular or to deal fairly with other nations, to protect other nations, or to feed even one human being. Nobody makes us show up at every earthquake, plague, famine, or flood, with C-5A's full of donated relief supplies. Nobody said we had to care about every war and ancient ethnic feud on the planet... and for quite a few of them we simply don't, it is sad to say.

But get this straight. The sole job of the United States Government is to protect the United States. PERIOD. No more, no less.

One more time for the slower members of the class. The sole job of the United States Government is to protect the United States. PERIOD.

IF we can best accomplish our objectives by promoting freedom and liberty, by sending foriegn aid to the starving and helping fight AIDS in Africa, we will do so. This is our current policy and belief.
This is why we protested Aparthite, and sent aid to the Iranian Earthquake victims and the Pakistani Earthquake victims, and the folks who got hit in the Indian Ocean Tsunami. This is why we rebuilt Europe after WW2 and why we kept the Communsts out of S.Korea and Japan and Tiawan and why we tried to hold S.Vietnam and Laos and Cambodia. Heck that is why we went to the Moon... we felt it was in our national interest to do so.

IF however events convince us that our interests are best served by turning your entire nation into an uninhabitable moonscape of devistation we will do that too. Just ask the residents of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hanoi, Hiroshima, or Nagisaki.

Letting more nations have nuclear weapons does not enhance the saftey of the United States, this is why we are against it.

Our having nuclear weapons, does enhance the saftey of the United States, that is why we invented the rotten things in the first place, and that is why we have as many as we do.

I hope that you can understand now.

Answer 5

Well, MAD (mutually assured destruction) worked as a deterrent policy for about 40 years because the other superpowers with nuclear weapons wanted to LIVE.

The difference now is the radical nutcases in the middle east have no fear of dying and promote a religion which preaches that death is welcomed and rewarded (except for the leaders of course - ever seen an imam or mullah blow themselves , up? no - it's always a poor schmuck with nothing to live for) .

So we have 50,000 nukes - and we MUST stop those who do not fear death from getting them.

It will take another maybe two more 9/11's - the West will get tired of these two-bit countries and they will glow for 10,000 years and we'll finally be rid of them.

I can't wait.

Answer 6

Yep, we would probably be better off to completely close our borders, make everyone leave that wasn't born here, quit sending any relief monies to any other countries, never send anymore aid anywhere else, form a dictatorship and do away with rights, freedoms and democracy,arrest and torture anyone that seems to be a threat to our new found way of living, let our new dictatorship cut the average family income to below the poverty level. Then those 50,000 nukes could be blasted off to all those countries that don't think like we do.,,,,,,,But wait, then we would be just like some of those countries out there right now.

Answer 7

Simple it is called protection or do you even give a rats azz about youre own country. the countrys like Iran and such do you think they would not use them against the u.s, if you dont get a reality check and come out of youre little hole in the ground they hate the U.S not because of the military but plane and simple becayuse you are westerners do not think that would not even bat a eye at blowing youre neighbor hood back t the stone age, our bigest mistake was when we decidded to dismantle our nukes

Answer 8

Silly person. We never intended to use ours. We are far to civilized for that and besides there is no money in it. We don't want naughty little communists like North Korea or even Peace Loving Islamic Nations like Iran (Did I actually write that) to have them because then Liberals would run around screaming about the threat of Nuclear war.

Answer 9

Not just the US but the nations that do have them, don't want other nations to keep getting them, for the over all safety of the world.

We worry about global warming and want to allow crazy dictators to have nukes ??

The US, Russia, even China understand what happens when the nukes get started being used, and this knowledge keeps them from using them.

When nations that want world war, and want to bring the world to an end get them, they will use them, they have no fear of not using them. so in that, everyone should easily agree we don't want those nations to have them.

I can't beleive anyone could even not 100 agree controling who gets them is a great idea

Answer 10

Because the leaders of this country (USA) are more level headed when it comes to nukes. I don't want some dictator with a hangover to have access to these weapons. Irrational people with powerful weapons is just asking for disaster.

Answer 11

No. Actually the US is one of the few nations responsible enough to be trusted with them.

You think Iran or North Korea should have nukes? That's ridiculous.