is it right for U.S. to prevent nations in getting nuclear weapons if they pose a military threat?

Question

so... is it right for the U.S. to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat?

Go in-depth wit ur answer.

Answer 1

Yes becuase many of these nations cant be trusted with them. not just in their use of them but in the selling them to terrorist organizations.

Answer 2

Why the US? As of so far the US is the only nation to us a nuclear weapon against a foe. I'd say that puts them at the bottom of the list. The reason i bring that up is WWII was the only military use of nuclear weapons and their destructive capabilities are now known to the point where they scare the heck even out of their owners. Governments using weapons arn't much of a problem. Assured mutual destruction is a pretty good way to dissuade people. I personally think the far more appropriate course of action is to unconditionally aid countries with possession in securing and accounting for all weapons in order to keep them out of hands of rogue groups.

Answer 3

Yes. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) was the result of the world powers realizing that the posession and stockpiling of nuclear weapons was bad.
By using military force to prevent some loose cannon nation from obtaining such a weapon, we protect not only our own nation, but others around the world.

Answer 4

Well is it right for other nations to prevent the USA from getting nuclear weapons if it poses a military threat? You can answer your own question.

Answer 5

It is right for us to conquer countries who DON'T pose a threat to us, if it is in our best interest. For example, if some hypothetical country had an absolute dictator who controlled a billion-a-day income from, say, oil revenue. Also, suppose he hates our guts, but poses no real threat. But he owns his own money and can give it to whomever he pleases. Many of our enemies could make a billion dollars go a long way towards harming Americans. So this "hypothetical" dictator has got to go!
Any country that even WISHES bad things for the U.S. should be puppetized for their own good, imho...

Answer 6

I don't know what point you're trying to make here, dude, but the whole thing is about self preservation for the US and it's allies.

If you wish to split hairs over what's right and what's wrong, you go right ahead, however, if we have the ability to stop some pathetic, self destructive SOB like Ahmadinejad, than I say, go for it.

Yes, it's right to do so. Those who second guess their rights for self preservation are likely candidates for pushing up lilies.

Answer 7

Well... Considering I live here.... I think thats a pretty smart strategy to deter other countries that hate us from aquiring a nuclear weapon. Now whether its right or not, I don't really care. It seems like common sense to me. For all those who answered that do think its wrong..... E-mail me if you come close to getting hit by one and tell me if you have changed your mind.

Answer 8

You are assuming we are the governing authority on this topic. We are not. You need to speak to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Answer 9

The United States has lost its mind.

Answer 10

NO. Why are we allowed to have them and others not? I wish US wouldn't be trying so hard to rule the world because in reality, I think we suck kinda. Our presidents can't do anything usefull, just fight and fight and fight and fight over everything. Oil, war, money, race, everything.