nuclear weapons?

Question

Do you think it is fair that the American government wants to stop countries like Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weapons? There are about twelve or so countries in the world with nuclear weapons. The USA is one of these countries, and is also the only one that has actually used them in war. Generally these countries don’t argue that as a point, when confronted about WMD. More often they claim their nuclear programs are for peaceful intentions, such as providing power and what not or they are secretive about the issue as if they are going to get caught by “Daddy” doing something they are not meant to be doing. Don't get me wrong I don’t really want these or any country for that matter, to have these weapons but they exist, doesn’t the whole thing seem like a double standard? I just find it a little odd don’t you?

yeah i agree it is in americas interests to stop this but america has them why cant other countries? is it fair to say some countries can have them and some cant?

yo its me...well no i dont but im not really talking about what i want im talking about what seems fair

listen i'm an australian and i am glad we can consider the USA an ally and i dont want these countries to have these weapons. but i just think their needs to be an independant body that regulates all of the countries in the same manner. personally i think the un is a joke.

Answer 1

Philosophically it is unfair for any country to have nuclear capabilities seeing that with nuclear weapons it is possible to destroy the world. I agree that it is a double standard and very much a case of "Do as I say, not as I do". Who is justifiably able to say which countries do or do not have the right to develop these weapons? Who elected the US as the great arbitrator? Why should the US be the one to decide? It is hypocritical in the extreme because to this day the US is the ONLY country that has used a weapon of this destructive capability in aggressive action against another. It is all a game of power and we are merely pawns on the board. If terrorists want to get the technology to make and use these weapons - they will! There is no argument that I have ever heard that can clearly justify the sanction of some countries having nuclear capability and some being prohibited from it. It is like most arguments around this topic - totally illogical and heavily ladened with political and nationalistic propaganda.

Answer 2

Okay, do you think it's fair that society wants to deny felons the right to own guns while law abiding people are allowed to own guns?
It's the same principal. The countries you mention, Iran and North korea, are not considered responsible enough to keep nuclear weapons as defensive weapons only. They are aggressive countries. If they had these weapons, it's likely they wouldn't hesitate to use them.
The fact that the USA is the only country to use nukes is a good thing not a bad thing. Imagine what the planet would be like if countries use nukes as they would any other weapon at a time of war. There's been several wars, large and small, since WWII. By now, the planet would have been completely poisoned.

Answer 3

Yes, it is a double standard. The U.S. has the most nuclear weapons available for use and is the only nation that has ever used them in war. The objection to other nations developing nuclear power is primarily based on a kind of we have em, but we don't want you to have em mentality. The greatest fear is that some nations might share the nuclear weapons technology with terrorist groups or might use the technology against an ally, like Israel. This is a matter of technology regulation. In a nuclear age, all nations should be subject to the same regulations.

Answer 4

ON one level you are correct. But, as long as anyone has nuclear weapons, they HAVE to be restricted as much as possible. So far, no one has come up with a workable plan to eliminate them altoghether.

BTW--the "peaceful use" point doesn't apply--the technology for nuclear weapons is distinctive and easily identifiable--and NOT useable for any peaceful purposes.

But why is a double standard "okay" here? The answer goes to two points. First--the main effort is to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of regimes that are unstable, or led by individuals who arre unstable (fanatics, etc.)--people who might be insane enough to use them, in other words. Not to infringe the sovereignty of other nations.

But here is the crux of the matter: nuclear weapons are NOT just a bigger bomb. They are radically different in kind. To show you why, let me ask you to pause for a moment and (literally) take a deep breath. In the time it took you to take that breath, ONE good-sized nuclear weapon can wipe out any city in the world--even a city like New York or London. Ten million or more people dead--in the time it took you to take that breath.

Even "small" nuclear weapons are just a sbad--the effects of a single blast just doesn't cover as wde an area. We've all seen movies and other scenarios attempting to show what it might be like. But--if you are familier with the history (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and the technology--those portrayals understate what this means. So far, no one has had the nerve to put out a movie or tv show tha tportrays the realities. I wish they would--it might wake some people up.

And the effects don't end there. Nuclear fallout will contaminate a region--for years or decades. A large scale use of nuclear weapons would triger short-term climate changes far wore than any that might come from global warming.

That is not a destructive power ANYONE can be trusted worth. But as long as they do exist, we MUST keep them out of the hands of people unstable enough to use them. The philosophical point about "double standards" is one thing. The survival of civilization--and perhaps of humanity--has to take priority.

Answer 5

I do not want Nuclear weapons in the wrong hands. Now having said that. Maybe because of our policies and actions in the middle east, these people think they need them for deterence of an American attack. America knows that if these countries do get nuclear weapons they will not be so easily pushed around. Just a thought since we do seem to have a double standard in the ME.

Answer 6

Iran retains insisting it desires to get rid of Israel and could not step back from that fact. Iran is in the back of the insurgency in Iraq, Afganistan, so it would not make for a great resume. i don't comprehend with the situation people have with the US having nukes. the US has the duty to guard it is allies, because of the fact there are curiously no different countries keen to fill the roll, which I certainly have a situation with. Japan replaced right into a fanatical society which might have fought right down to the final woman and new child, so the two way those lives could have been misplaced. might you somewhat see Russia with the capabiltiy of the US militia. Russia and China killed extra people than the US ever will and that they did not use nukes.

Answer 7

To allow countries that cannot control the actions of its citizenry to such an extent that terrorism is a daily occurrence to have such weapons is unacceptable. Its like giving weapons to a fighting group of school children.

Why is this just our job. To prevent them from getting these weapons. Everyone should be concerned. I would love nothing more that to have China, Canada, India, Japan, Germany, France and everyone else stand up and say, "not until you grow up and meet with the rest of the world to prove it. You will not have nuclear capability."

Answer 8

No it is not fair. But do you want Iran and North Korea to have them? I don't think it's fair that I'm not a billionaire, but that's life, sorry. And while there is no justifiable reason for me not being a billionaire (so REALLY unfair), there is justification for Iran and North Korea not having nukes (so mildly unfair).

Answer 9

America is not and will never will be le by an unstable dictator, unless of course Hillary should happen to be elected, the countries you are refrencing are small 3rd world countries who will sell nuclear weapons to terrorists!~!

Answer 10

If you go to purchase a hand gun you must submit to a background check. If you are a felon, or have a violent criminal history you will not be permitted to own one.

Same thing on a much LARGER scale...Iran and some others are the loony felons who couldn't get the permit trying to acquire their hand gun (or Nukes) from the guy in the alley behind the gun shop...they must be stopped.