why isn't it okay for all countries to have nuclear weapons?

Question

i know because some countries are "evil" but isn't it really not fair that some countries have them and do not allow others to? shouldn't all countries be allowed to defend themselves on equal ground? if not, then why are they recognized as a country at all and not overthrown by the stable country nearby?

Answer 1

Are u really that naiive? If a mad dog is running down the street we should open all the doors in the grade school so he has equal access to bite every child?

That makes exactly the same sense as your question.

As for why dont the stable countries overthrow them?.>>>> IRAQ

Answer 2

It's not that countries are "evil", I don't believe any country as a whole is in fact "evil". The people in charge however are a different story all together. To answer your question it's not okay because not all countries will maintain nuclear weapons responsibly, and not all countries have the means to secure the technology so people who are "evil" don't get there hands on it. As far as it being fair, nothing is fair in life and few government officials in any country should use the term, and the ones who have often saw a very short term in which ever post they stood.
Now watch how many people say something about America being the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon.

there's one!

there's two!!

there's three!!!

Answer 3

I don't think any country should have nuclear weapons.
In school and on PBS I've seen footage taken in Japan showing the aftermath of Heroshima and Nagasaki including images of people burned into walls and sidewalks, and children burned into the walls of the school buildings. And footage of those who weren't killed but were left handicapped or deformed. In fear that the Nazis would develop nuclear weapons first, Albert Einstein sent a letter to then president Franklin D Roosevelt that he should construct a nuclear fission weapon. After the bombs were dropped it was reported that Einstein regretted ever writing that letter.
Unfortunately the bombs today carry far more yield than the bombs dropped in WWII.
It makes me sad to think man has ever invented a weapon capable of such mass destruction. The destructive power isn't even the worst part. What about all the innocent people who die when such weapons are launched? You shouldn't be asking "Why isn't it fair?" when you should be asking "Why? Why do they even exist? Why were they ever invented?".

Answer 4

It would be folly to allow all countries to have nuclear weapons. A certain level of 'national maturity' (that's what I call it, anyway) has to be achieved before that can happen. Nations have to take into consideration the worldwide devastation a nuclear war would cause. Even a limited exchange will do massive damage (and I'm not including the huge toll in lives, either). It would be nice if everybody was stable enough to allow that. If everyone had nukes, nobody would use them (assuming everyone was stable and sensible). Unfortunately, everyone isn't stable and sensible. Iran has declared its intention to destroy Israel using any means at their disposal. North Korea sees any attempt to mitigate their ambition as an act of war. Recently, we've seen a rise of morons in Central and South America (Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and Bolivia). If they had nukes, they'd undoubtedly use them on North America or at least threaten to.

You can't just overthrow anybody who makes you mad. (I know, some people think that is just what we're doing in Iraq, but that's just bluster) Overthrowing these rogue states is considered very impolite in the global community. If the neighbors of these countries tried to take them over, the UN would pop in and slap them with sanctions. Most countries in the world can't afford to be slapped with economic sanctions. In my opinion, the UN needs to be sanctioned, but thats another story.

Answer 5

Believe it or not, nukes aren't the leading equipment now: US has a few tens of thousands left but won't use them at all and US also could defend itself from a simultaneous launch of all other countries' nuclear arsenal............
And nukes were never defensive, purely offensive.
And the term "country" won't matter much when the US (once again) will start Globalization...... Then they'll be the United Earth or something like that.....
And Tom, if you'd be so kind, the only thing about Iran is the religion which, in my eyes, is az bad or as good az christianty;
Otherwise, yes they are morally better than the US.....sorry

Answer 6

I personally think that NO countries should have nuclear weapons. You are right, it is hypocritical that countries that have lots of nuclear weapons try to stop other countries from having them. We all know which the only country to actually USE a nuclear weapon is.

Answer 7

Simple fact that most countries don't go around calling for a specific country to be wiped off the map, or promising to use nuclear weapons as soon as they get them.....hmmmm....am i talking about iran and north korea? I think so.

And to the history major, its 2007 my friend, get with the times loser

Answer 8

If you want to be allowed into the nuclear weapons family you have to follow one simple rule: don't be crazy. There is absolutely NO reason for Iran to have nuclear weapons, since they have said they want to wipe Israel of the face of the Earth. Do you think its "fair" for terrorist to have nukes? Because that's who's hands they will fall into once we start letting countries like Iran have nuclear weapons.

PS-Don't count on it Clutch.

Answer 9

never forget what i'm about to tell you

THE ONLY COUNTRY TO EVER USE NUKES IN WAR WAS THE USA. and it used them not because (well in some part) japan bombed pearl harbor..but it did so out of racism. if you read many of the generals personal letters (and they are out there) they clearly say that they dropped the bomb because the damn japs weren't human etc.

the usa is the one who can't be trusted. you know that in the late 80's russia had a break down in its nuke system and the world was only a few mintues from going to hell by way of nukes. BUT TWO RUSSIAN guys manning a missile base noticed the malfunction-told their comanders to hold off firing and pretty much saved the world. mean while the usa and its people were ACTUALLY FREAKING OUT AND HAD THEIR HANDS ON THE BUTTON. only reason they didn't strike was because the russians called the usa embassy and told them was was going on. the usa didn't believe them..but eventually russia convinced them. barely.

the system had failed on the usa side and it was looking like the russians had fired nukes at the usa-russia noticed that usa had readied their nukes-looked into what was going on and realised that there was a malfunction in something (i'm no expert).

the usa can't be trusted. by the way india and pakastan who both hate each other both have nukes and have never used them on each other. china has never bombed korea russia didn't use them on the afghans and so on.

the usa is the only one's to do so-less than 15 years after the mann act-a racist act passed that banned asians from american society,and allowed other racist things to be allowed (a whole other story we don't need to go into).

USA SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO HAVE NUKES.


the guy above me should follow his own advice because he's the one making a fool of himself. it show's he knows nothing about world poltics let alone his own countries history.

by the way i have a history degree.

Answer 10

How long would you like to be alive?

This isn't an issue of "fairness." It is an issue of irrational people running governments that (Thank God) do not have the technological wherewithal to produce these weapons.

As for one country overthrowing another on the basis of the "adopted" country's ability (or lack thereof) to produce nuclear weapons, well, I don't see your logic on that one.

With all due respect, your question suggests a real lack of understanding about world politics and international defense. I suggest you read more on these issues before you post a question like this again and further embarrass yourself.