Where is the rule in the rule book that says one nation can tell another it can't have nuclear weapons?

Question

Is the big bad bully of the sandbox mad because little timmy wants to build a sandcastles in the corner.

How'd it work out for the bully last time when he accussed timm'y older brother of building little nuclear sandcastles?


Where are the sandcastles?

Answer 1

I am Spartacus!!!

Answer 2

It's in the rule book under "We can kick your butt so you'll do what we say!"

It's the same in any "sandbox". Either you do what the stronger guy says or you get your butt kicked.

That's play ground 101 buddy. Where did you grow up?

Remember, in the animal Kingdom, only the Alpha Male gets to mate. I know this sounds conceited but let's look at the reality of that situation. If only the strongest of the species gets to mate, then that species will increasingly get stronger. Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest and all that. And how does the Alpha Male keep his top spot and ensure his species lives on? Through shows, threats and the use of force.

Additionally, in the animal kingdom, the weaker males rarely ever get killed by the stronger males. Know why? Cause they realize they're "outgunned" and back down.

Maybe Iran should watch the Discovery Channel....

Answer 3

It's not exactly sandcastles we are talking about, And once the sandcastle is built, it's too late.

It's more like should little 6 year old Timmy be allowed to keep a loaded gun just because he found it himself. If you let him keep it you know sooner or later he will shoot someone.

It's hard enough to trust adults with a loaded gun. Now you want to let a room full of six year olds have guns, and wait until they start shooting each other before you take them away. Allot of adults could get hurt before you disarm them.

And yes, I think most of the Mid-East countries act like six year olds.

Answer 4

Those who have nuclear weapons write their own rules.

As the holders of so much power, nuclear nations have an obligation to not threaten and hold people hostage with their nuclear arsenal. Unlike the small scale bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the nuclear weapons of today have only deterrent value. This is why Russia is so upset with US anti-ballistic efforts in Eastern Europe. If successful, it could render their deterrent useless.

The US may be imperfect and act in an ill-advised manner from time-to-time, but our system of electing the government has a moderating effect on long-term action and goals... Are you comfortable enough with an unelected theocratic regime to assume they will behave moderately with so much power?

Answer 5

LOL - I see someone is a Muslim terrorist lover. Tell me, exactly why do you think Iran should be allowed to build nukes? They have already said that their goal is nothing more or less than the complete destruction of Israel. Are you one of those people that hate Israel?

Let me ask you this. What do you think is going to happen if Iran does build several nukes and does use one on Israel? Do you expect anyone in the middle east to survive at that point? The more troubling concern, the US economy runs on oil. If they start using nukes, you can kiss all that oil goodbye. Which pretty much means we are going to go from $2.50 for gallon of gas to $50 per gallon almost over night.

So, its not just the fact that they want the weapons. Its what they ARE going to do with them when they get them.

I should point out that if nothing is done about Iran's attempts to acquire nukes fairly soon. Israel will be left with no choice but to take action in order to assure its survival.

Answer 6

Let me guess. You're all for a waiting period to purchase a handgun while they check the purchaser's background, right? So if you wouldn't let a murdering psychopath own a handgun, why would you let a nation of murdering psychopaths own nukes?

The differing philosophies about how, why and when to use 'em is what separates who is allowed to have them from who is not allowed to have them.

And if you're about to retort that the U.S. isn't responsible enough to have them, let me just point out that if we weren't, we would have completely reduced the entire world to rubble by now.

Answer 7

I think as High school student, Bush misinterpreted the purpose of the United Nations to think that only the United States will be the major decision maker of the world. I don't see why not, we have been trying to do it ever since 1800's.

Answer 8

There is none.

The closest is a series of international treaties -- where countries have voluntarily agreed that they (themselves) wouldn't develop such weapons -- and that applies only as long as the country wants to abide by the treaty.

Absent that -- the only rule that says so is "might makes right" -- the last recourse for the bully.

Answer 9

and when little timmy gets pissed and gives all his suff to hamas, who would be likely to use them, who do we blame then? and if that stuff ends up in the USA. then what? does your scenario account for that?iran hid their program, fully denied it mind you, for twenty years. they worked with a q khan and GOD only knows who else has gotten their hands on that info.nuclear power-ok. nuclear bombs-NO. it would be an international columbine. kids who felt mistreated and decided to take it out on random people.

Answer 10

You know what, if you people hate America so badly, why dont you leave? Were going to be against Iran having nukes, regardless of whos president. get over it and learn to like it!! Like I said, Europe needs skilled non-muslim labor.

Answer 11

The real question you need to be asking is "Why would somebody attempt to build nuclear weapons if they have no intent of using them?" I don't want us to be the world's police, either, but I would rather be that than just sit back and let every Arab nation have the technology to blow us off the map!