SO which countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons?

Question

I say none! Not the U.S. not Russia not China ...no one!

If you were the President of a country the U.S. or Russia or China had their eye on invading wouldn't you want nukes too????

Answer 1

Israel.

Answer 2

Ideally, no countries should have nuclear weapons.

unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world.

the next best thing is to limit nuclear weapons' proliferation.

It is not about "fairness" or who hates who.

In much the same way that the founders of the USA in 1776 did not extend the voting franchise to everyone, there were limits on who got to participate.

Back then, white land owners 35 years old and over were recognized as having the right to vote, as they had a vested interest in the perpetuation of the society they lived in.

Only later was the franchise widened to include other members of society.

Similarly in the modern era, to allow certain countries to have nuclear weapons is equivelant to letting 13 year olds have handguns. No good can come from this.

It is precisely that the advanced nations have the most to lose that they can be trusted with the awesome responsibility of nuclear weapons. A myopic short-sighted theocracy is not a good candidate for future peace.

Countries that have shown previous restraint (which includes the USA, USSR, and even Israel) have demostrated the stability and stewardship to be trusted with these weapons.

There are dozens of countries that have the technical expertise to make nuclear weapons--really powerful ones, not just the basic models that Iran is hoping to make- countries like Canada, Italy, Germany or Japan or even Norway. Yet these countries choose not to.

Why? because they have no intention to ever use them.
Countries that build nuclear weapons foresee their either imminent or acceptable use.

If my kid wanted an assault rifle, I would make him wait until he was old enough ot use it responsibly, and hopefully by the time he matures, he outgrows this desire.

Same with the current crop of nuclear wannabes.

Answer 3

It doesn't really matter if they DO have nukes.

USA has 5k - 10k nukes, complete with a method of delivery. (ICBM, Sub Launch, Aircraft Launch, Aircraft Delivery, Carrier Delivery, etc)

Russia, about the same in number, though delivery suffers a little compared to USA.

Then comes UK, France, China. From 1k to 100 nukes. Others fall in, like India, Pakistan, but no where near 1k-100 nukes.

The reason a country might want to develop nuclear weapons isn't to actually fight that country. If they can develop one, or partially, it's about a political bargenning chip. ie: I'll dismantle this, if I get XYZ.

Using that one nuclear weapon, assuming they've ALSO developed a delivery method, is laughable. Absurd. Yeah, they'll mess up a FEW BLOCKS of one city, vaporize a bit of people, give many others radiation poisoning/burns that will kill them over 0-30 years (and not even rendering many of them unable to assist with war effort). But as far as a WAR that is *NOTHING*. It's absurd a nation would do that, to a teeny tiny part of a city... without.. you know, considering the consequences...

Like...

How are they gonna deal with the thousands that come back at them, in continued struggle to actually mount a war while maintaining soventry? -- Laughable --

Trying to obtain a nuke isn't about detonating it.Or even considering, for a flash of a second, of actually using it..

Also possessing them isn't about using them either. It's actually more an instrument of peace. (Deterrant from conventional attack) If cold war was a lesson to anyone, it's THAT. Each side was more worried about the other launching. Neither even considering a conventional attack, for fear of pressing other into a nuclear one. It's politics and fear-peddling. Old trick - now it's ' 'terrorism' '.

The real danger from nukes is not from soverign nations, but from proliferation. A country that might sell, or provide, a group who has no where to strike back at. However, that's almost as dangerous to that nation if it's discovered where it came from... Which it certainly would be. Again. Small damage. Big consequence.

Answer 4

The only countries that can have Nukes, are the ones that can be trusted with them. The only ones that can be trusted are the ones that have something to lose. A country that has little to lose is much more likely to use them.

The only insurance against their use is mutually destruction. (Knowing that if you use them you too will be wiped out!)

Answer 5

I agree with MrNiceGuy--*every* nation should have nuclear weapons. This would force countries to resolve their differences at the diplomacy table rather than the battlefield.

Any nation that dared to use its nuclear arsenal would face utter destruction at the hands of every other nation.

Answer 6

Very tough question. Same one the President of Iran told a reporter. He said we (the U.S.) are in our 5 (generation) of Nuclear Weapon generation and Testing and Stockpiling. Who are we( the U.S.) to say we are going to use them for WAR?

Answer 7

OK which country should be disarmed first?

Do you think every country should be allow to have nuclear weapons?

If so do you believe everyone should be able to own any kind of gun they want if not why not?

Answer 8

Not too many. There are 189 signatories to the Non Proliferation Treaty. Iran is one of them. India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel did not sign, and they all have nuclear weapons.

Answer 9

I think every country should have nukes. Who would risk going to war? Despite how crazy the repubs want you to think some of these countries are no one wants to get their whole country blown to bits on principle alone. Remember how long we were convinced that the Russians and the Chinese were evil, hand wringing, manical laughing communists? They've had nukes for as long as we have and the world hasn't been blown up yet. Trying to get no one to have them is like trying to hold up a dike by putting your fingers in the holes. You can't unlearn something, it's been discovered, let everybody use it. And if we all get blown to hell, I'll just admit I was wrong.

Answer 10

Have you considered that, if you weren't pursuing nukes, we would have no interest in your country? Th US isn't interested in Iran except for the fact that they destabilize the middle east...wake up and smell the coffee Kelly.

Answer 11

Not countries that say Isreal will be wiped off the map. Start tring to live the real world, Kelly. You know the one that you're on.