Why should the nuclear-free policy be abolished?

Question

The policy about how every country shouldnt have any nuclear weapons and that it should be illegal for any country to make nuclear weapons. Well tell me why it should be legal for countries to make nuclear weapons or why you think that they should stop the policy.

Answer 1

With some countries going around threatening to destroy other countries would be the first clue. We cannot allow a country that does this have the ability to have nuclear weapons to back up that threat.

Answer 2

The anti nuclear proliferation treaty was devised to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and their production in the hope it would stop countries making or obtaining and using them for silly unreasonable motives. Since their development during the second world war and their use against Japan the spread of nuclear weapons has been checked by this treaty because very few counties saw the need or could afford the technology to produce them.

So far the policy has worked and there are only six of seven countries or perhaps less than a dozen counties that are willing to admit to having weapons of mass destruction. At present the policy is under strain because wanna be nuclear states like Iran feel the need to have these weapons. The motivation for wanting such weapons is clear, they are intimidating and give and huge destructive advantage to states that have them and by owning them can bring greater influence and in Iran case a vain hope it will admit them to the 1st world with all its advantages and protect them from others states such as Israel who might be tempted to use such devices in a likely conflict between the two states.

The fact is unless you are completely mad then all you can ever do is to own them!, and once an adversary has the same capability any advantage becomes nullified, this is what happened during the cold war , the west (USA- UK - FRANCE) had nuclear weapons so did the east communists, USSR - CHINA) the effect was to cancel out any advantage with the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (mad) since both sides saw sense there has been no further use of nuclear weapons in any conflict since the end of the second world war. Only now with such adversarial states such as India and Pakistan who have continuing animosity towards each other - North Korea who's animosity towards the USA and mistrust of anything democratic does their use become more likely.

Answer 3

There's no reason NOT to abolish it. In addition to keeping us safer it prevents less stable countries from having a nuclear weapon. If a government falls then ANYONE could use such a weapon at his/her own will and that is a risk too big to take. For example the ex-Soviet Union is still missing some nuclear missiles. They are no doubt for sale on the black market. They could easily turn up as a dirty bomb or suitcase nuke in the hands of a terrorist.

Answer 4

Disagree with you on many factors: 6: supply super Tax credit to companies which start to sell, produce, and improve green Tech. 7: decrease protection Spending via 20% 9: do away with Humanitarian help ($37 Billion in line with 12 months is wasted in this.) 12: supply super Tax credit to companies which build Nuclear means plant life 13: enhance S.S. Tax on good a million.5% (super wealthy) 14: Double NASA budget (approximately $20 Billion extra effective) 15: close all militia bases in Europe sixteen: Redirect stimulus funds to the buyer basically. Why do you elect to defund our militia and enhance spending on tax credit and stimuli while the debt is $12 trillion and the Muslims choose us lifeless?

Answer 5

Peace to Earth!!! No War, No Nuclear, No Terrorist.

Answer 6

America tries to control the world.

You never hear anyone questioning Israel, a brutal, aggressive, warlike regime about their nukes. Why?

Answer 7

All we can do is watch fox news and listen to hate radio until the war on terror is over.
Thanks in advance for awarding me best answer

Answer 8

Because it's really got to do with power and threats