Why is it OK for some countries to keep their atom bombs while not so for others?

Question

The following countries have the A B - The USA, The UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel. Why not N/Korea or Iran ?

Answer 1

So what you are saying is that you think North Korea and Iran should have nukes?

Note to the people who said, because they might use them. I would like to make a few points. The U.S. has never said we would not use them (we haven't even said we would not use them first, even Carter wouldn't do that). The real issue is the conditions under which we, Russia, China or Israel might use them - most of these countries are rational actors and realize the consequences of use. If Israel were to use them, there would be grave consequences for them as well (radiation fallout blow-back, but also international outcry from the superpowers). It is believed that the rational actors will consider the consequences more carefully than the rogue states. There is also the issue of balance. In the case of India and Pakistan, during the last border war, once it escalated to a certain point, both sides backed down for fear that the other might lob a nuke their way. Iran and North Korea really don't have equal power to balance them.

Answer 2

Well the world as a whole tries to keep other countries from gaining nuclear weapons so we don't have 160 countries with 90,000 nuclear weapons in the world. When the NPT was signed in 1968(ratified by everyone but Iran, N Korea, Pakistan and India) Only China, USA, Russia, Britain and France were recognized as nuclear states since they already had the bomb and make up the UN security council. The point of the treaty though was to stop the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries, and get enough trust between existing countries to disarm their supplies. The US preaches it the most but we do little to reduce our own supply since the mid-90's, the problem is once a country gets a bomb, it doesn't want to get rid of it, the only country that has is South Africa. It should be noted though that numerous othe countries, Japan, Germany, Italy, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Sweden, South Africa and some others have the technology and resources to build the bomb but don't. The world as a whole wants no other states to have the bomb.

Answer 3

For the simple reason, that the countries you have mentioned with the exception of maybe Pakistan are probably never going to use them.

They are used as deterrents.

Whereas as North Korea and Iran if allowed to have Nukes, they will in all likelihood use them, regardless of the consequences.

So far Pakistan has shown restraint, and besides once they get them it is hard to take them away. which is why we are attempting to make sure that neither Iran or N/Korea ever get that kind of power.

It is just like the police and the gang banger. The Police are allowed to carry a gun, do you want the gang banger to also be able to carry a gun?

Answer 4

It is not a moral question but a strategic one that our government (and others) attempt to portray in moral terms.
Once a country has a nuke it is prety much safe from being invaded by others it is also difficult to pressure militarily because it has so strong of a defense.
We are at war with North Korea and have been since the fifties, what we have with them is a 50 year old ceasefire and so of course we want to keep nkes out of the hand of our enemy.
Let us not forget the 40,000 U.S. troops stationed on the N/S Korea border.
Iran is our enemy ever since they overthrew the shah that we imposed on them (we threw out their democratically elected government in the fifties and replaced it with a U.S. friendly puppet who , though oppressive to his people gave us sweet oil contracts) and they took our citizens hostage for 444 days back in 1979. The reason we sponsored Saddam Hussein whilst he ruthlessly attacked Iran and gassed the Kurds in his own land (often using WMDs to do so) was because of our animopsity towards Iran.

We made some noise about India and Pakistan getting them including some limited and temporary sanctions but once you've got them you've got them.

China is no great respecter of human rights but we can't do anything about them having them.

Israel is our unconditional ally so we let it do WHATEVER IT WANTS EVEN THOUGH THIS MAKES NO SENSE.

Iran is seen as a threat to Israel as is every Arab or muslim nation(though this is nonsense since Israel has defeated them all repeatedly in full-scale war) .

Also any nation attaining a nuke is against our policy because it reduces our ability to bully them.

Answer 5

Because some Countries might use them, the ones you name (Iran, North Korea) have a history of starting agressive wars to conquer others.

Answer 6

If A Russian Jew Named Ethel Rosenberg Had Not Stolen US Nuclear Program Secrets And Given Them To Russia, No-One Would Have Nukes But The US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethel_Rosenberg

Answer 7

Yeah, its a little strange. If anyone deserves to have their bombs taken away, its probably us (the U.S.). Afterall, we're the only ones who've actually used nuclear weapons against people, and we did it twice. Personally, I think we had to given the circumstances at the time. The scary thing is that rational, intelligent people decided it was necessary to use the weapon in 1945; there is no reason why rational, intelligent people might decide to do the same in 2007. And if rational, intelligent people can find justification for it, then irrational and unintelligent radicals will have no problem finding "just" causes for it either.

Better build a bunker.

Answer 8

No country should start to build nuclear weapons because of the inherent dangers. If a country already has them they should take steps to reduce them - and in fact the Non proliferation treaty obliges them to take good faith measures in this direction.

Answer 9

proliferation,Israel has never admitted to having the Bomb,N/K and Iran considered Rogue states

Answer 10

Because countries with nuclear weapons have the military capability both to prevent themselves from being forcibly dispossessed of their nuclear weapons and to prevent other countries from obtaining nuclear weapons. Any attempt to divert the answer to a more normative sense of what is "OK" is moot in light of the practical reality of national policy being projected via effective military force.