Why are the UK not bound by the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

Question

Why are countries like the UK allowed to produce Nuclear weapons for their defence where countries like Iran and N Korea arent? Just asking.

Sorry i meant to add that the UK are replacing their trident nuclear missiles now - how is this not proliferating the UKs stock of nuclear weapons?

Its a shame the treaty doesnt include gradual dissarmament. that way re stocking wouldnt take place and cost coutries billions of pounds.

Answer 1

The UK government isn't allied with terrorists and don't need the money that could be generated by illegal sales of said weapons. In short, the Brits will control the technology far more responsibly.

Answer 2

The UK got nuclear weapons before the treaty came aboutand this is about proliferation.The number of nations that had nuclear weapons were so limited just after WWII and the nations that had them(mainly the UN permanent members of security council) have shown themselves as responsible and holding them purely as a deterrent.The treaty came into being to stop countries such as N.Korea and Iran ruled by irresponsible dictators who are already threatening to destroy other country's getting their hands on a weapon they would willingly use.Maybe your question should be is why is Israel exempt from this also genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Answer 3

they already had nuclear weapons capacity before 1963 and the signing of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Im not sure whether that means that they're more responsible just because they are in the West However. See; Northern ireland and the Troubles. There are, however, megaton capacity limits on nuclear warheads and a cap on number osf short, intermediate and long range weaponry stocks. Also it depends on what form of nuclear reaction takes place, as things such as neutron bombs are classified as nuclear or sub-nuclear reactions.

Answer 4

I can't really understand why there is such a fuss about Britain having nuclear weapons . Israel has many more than us, and France is the possessor of more than anybody else apart from the US and Russia. We have a very small military now so we need some defence or deterrent against rogue states.
You should question why France needs such a vast arsenal considering they surrender at the first sign of trouble.
Edit: I didn't realise there were two French people who could read, to give me the thumbs down.

Answer 5

Replacing and adding to are different things. The Trident system is becoming out of date, the missiles themselves are becoming quite old and need replacing to make sure they work.
We're not building extra missiles, the old system will be scrapped once the new one is in place.

Besides, when North Korea or Iran can tell us what to do then we'll scrap it all, but considering most of them spend a living scratching in the dust like chickens, I think we'll be the ones calling the shots. ;o)

Answer 6

All the big nations who don't want to take over the world do upgrade so in a way so that the missiles they make are more safe. It sounds funny but fuel degrades and electronics upgrades improve guidance and even allows a lower density bomb that is not as hazardous. Much more precise hits instead of a air burst you could do a direct ground hit, causing less fallout.You don't remember how close a ally British are to us we trust them as well because they almost got wiped off the face of the earth with WW II. They are a free nation and like us are not looking to take away someone Else's property like the countries you mentioned would. They would do so to increase their wealth and their power.

Answer 7

Nukes are a PR nightmare. It if truth be told shields any u . s . a . that possesses them from protection stress strikes. See china, North Korea, Russia, usa, France, Israel. Nukes are stable yet they are no longer the wonderweapon human beings cause them to to be. One firebombing run could have extra devastating consequences then a nuclear bomb (see tokio) they're very high priced and devoid of the only right suited knowhow they're constrained in use and ability (50kt yield max for any non nicely examined software) the only reason they paintings is concern of escalation. it only desires 50 nukes to exterminate human life for stable (international nuclear iciness). So if there are much less nukes there is extra threat of survival of..nicely all mankind. so its interior the only right activity of definitely everyone to cut back the numbers and countries having them. It only desires ONE loopy guy pushing the button for a a threat catastrophic escalation. If i grow to be iran i could make investments my income photograph voltaic ability. its extra fee-effective then a nuclear software and of their area an financial Goldmine.

Answer 8

You may need to actually read the treaty. The UK signed it along with 187 other nations. There are pillars but is not and never was a total ban or absolute disarmament.

Answer 9

Because countries like the UK and the USA aren't run by madmen who threaten to blow countries off the face of the earth.

I know some of you probably think Bush and Blair are madmen, but when is the last time either of them came on TV and threatened to nuke a country off the face of the earth?

Answer 10

because the non-proliferation treaty states that no countries that didn't already have nukes when it was signed would develop or acquire nukes. Russia, the UK, the US, and I think France were all originally exempt from the treaty