Why ban other countries from having nuclear programs?

Question

The USA was the first to harness the power of the atom for, first weapons use and then energy production.
Kind of like being the only guy on the block with a .44 magnum.
and not only that, we used it, needlessly! Japan had tried to broker a surrender, but the US war machine wanted to scare the USSR and others with this show of might and Japan was a reasonable target for such a purpose.
Anyway, I know that if I had a bully with a .44 on my street, I would want to be able protect myself with an equal level of menace (I do not pretend otherwise)
If the USA, Russia, France, India, England and China, have 'the bomb', why stop other countries from developing it? these countries are in no means intrinsically better or nicer or less apt to use it (remember we did, as soon as we had it)
Isn't this just additional motivation for smaller countries to actually WANT "the bomb"?
Don't they have a right to be scared of the existing superpowers?

for information about Japan's desire to broker peace, I refer all interested parties to the book Lawrence and Oppenheimer. Not only does this book chronicle the genesis of the nuclear age, but it follows the life of Oppenheimer through to the 1960's and the country's attempts to take his citizenship due to his stance against nuclear weapons.
The book, itself has all of the pertinent bibliographic citation for sceptics of what I stated here.

MAD (mutually assured destruction) is the theory that suppossedly stopped the USA and the USSR from fighting during the cold war.
It did not stop the USSR from constantly and continually abusing the areas it wanted to abuse.
The one and olny reason China was never invaded was that China was also an atomic nation.
If Afganastan had had the bomb, Russia would have never sent a single soldier there.
Yes, I agree, that a smaller country, for a wealth of reasons, would probably be much more likely to use the bomb.
Good.
Just as a smaller man would be more likely to level the playing field by pulling his gun first, if the larger man attacks or even threatens to attack him.
Pulling out the gun is not the same as firing it!
I wish the secrets of the atom had remained forever secret, but that is not the case.

As for the excuse of limiting it to countries that are not run by madmen; that is naive in the extreme, as no one can see the future, let alone know who will be in power in the future.
This is why there was such a scare after the breakup of the USSR. But nothing happened.
If any madman really did decide to strike out with nukes against the USA, you know that he could kiss his life and the lives of his family and countless others from his country, goodbye!
MAD works!

sparrowhawk' your analogy is assinine!
So the USA IS THE WORLD'S PARENT, IN OTHER WORDS?
Other countries have the right???
my neighbor has neither the right, nor the responsability to know, let alone control what goes on in my house!
The USA MUST stop being the world police bully!

Answer 1

You might have exaggerated a little in reasons for the US using nuclear weapons in Japan, but both the US and the USSR have used the threat of nuclear weapons much more effectively than if they'd actually launched their missiles.

If you have nuclear weapons, you can't be punished for meddling into other nations' affairs. And, yes, being 'bullied' would tend to encourage other nations to try to put themselves on equal footing by getting nuclear weapons themselves.

The problem is that having nuclear weapons tends to give any country a big advantage over its neighbors that don't have nuclear weapons. Even if they don't nuke their neighbors, just the threat of nuclear weapons allows them to get away with things they normally wouldn't. The US would have never assembled a 26 nation coalition to oust Iraq from Kuwait if neighboring countries were afraid to stand up to Iraq.

Having nuclear weapons almost makes you a superpower. In Iran's case, it would at least make them a regional superpower in a region that controls a large amount of the world's oil. They're definitely interested in affecting the situation in the region as a whole, as evidenced by their relationship with Syria and Hezbollah.

Throughout the entire history of human civilization, including the history of a nuclear armed US and USSR, almost every country with a military advantage has proceeded to use that advantage to create a new empire or to strengthen an emerging empire.

Iran might be the exception, but I don't really see any reason to believe that. I think they'll use the threat of nuclear weapons the same way the US and USSR have - to bully weaker nations into their own corner.

Answer 2

First of all nuclear energy can be very dangerous if used irresponsibly. The results of a nuclear accident can have global consequences (look no further than Chernobyl). The fact of the matter is that if a country wants to develop a nuclear program they should demonstrate the maturity needed to operate such a program safely. Also other countries have the right to monitor new nuclear programs to guarantee that things are being carried out is a safe manner. If a country dose not cooperate, then other countries have the right to protect themselves and intervene.

Also your argument that the fact that the US used the bomb 60 years ago gives other couturiers have the right to develop their own weapons programs is absurd. Its like saying that your parents can't punish you for drinking, smoking, or using drugs because they did drugs when the they were teenagers. Just because we dropped the bomb, does not make it right for other to make or use the bomb.

Answer 3

"Japan tried to broker a surrender" -- pls cite source as I've never heard this before in all of my 56 years.

by agreement with our allies at the time, only an unconditional surrender was to be allowed to Japan. If they're going to start a war by surprise attack, which Japan did in 1904 as well as 1941, then it seems reasonable to remove that form of government permanently -- thus; unconditional surrender.

***
Your comment about the bully is the answer you're seeking.

So far, after 1945, no nation that has nuclear weapons has actually used one. So far, all of them have shown that they won't do so.

The current regime in Iran [example] through its President who isn't the final authority has threatened other nations with genocide. If that isn't bullying, what is?

***
No one (aside from Pakistan) seems much concerned that India proved it has nuclear technology. When did India last threaten anyone? much less threaten genocide?

Answer 4

Of course they have a right to be scared. There is a relatively naive logic to the argument. I understand why they want the bomb. I just don't understand why WE want them to have the bomb. In the end, I trust me not to use that weapon, but I don't trust anyone else with it. I can't say that it is the nicest approach or the most enlightened but until we can get rid of the things I don't want to have more people who we have to trust not to use it.

Honestly, let's say you were the bully on the block, do you actually want to give out .44s to everyone you see? Put yourself in the bully's place because like it or not that is where you are if you live in a country with a nuclear weapon.

Answer 5

Better re-read your history book again re: the bombing of Japan needlessly! It was not done needlessly & Japan had not tried to broker a surrender with us, they went through Russia & Russia never past that information along to us! If you think that we did it just to scare Russia, then you place no value on the lives of the troops that would have been lost had we not used the bombs! It was not done lightly or to scare Russia!
The only reason we don't want those countries in the middle east to have the bomb is that they will use it against Israel, they want to drive them into the sea, their words, not mine! They also want enough bombs to send our Christian butts to hell! Perhaps you are not aware of their hatred for us & our Christian nation; we call ourselves that anyway, regardless of how Christian we are really, they think we are & thats all that matters to them! You do realize that we have been fighting in Iraq since March of 2003 & have not used one bomb on that country, don't you? We really don't care what Russia or China say about it, it we wanted to use that bomb, we would!
When we used those two bombs on Japan, we had no idea of the carnage it would create, we were appalled when we saw the devastation. That is the main reason it has never been used by us since! No one has to worry about us using that bomb again, unless it is the only way to preserve this nation! That's it!

Answer 6

I am consistently mystified by the attitude that the country that people have died defending, that has provided for her people in such incredibly bountiful ways and has, over the years, used her military might judiciously and only in her defense is subject to such silly questions as yours.

I know you want everyone and everything to be EXACTLY the same so that no one is bigger, better, or more powerful. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is not realistic.

Answer 7

we don't try to stop all nations from having nukes. Just the countries that are run by madmen. The ones like Iran and North Korea that have openly threatened to wipe other nations off the map

Answer 8

It's not about countries. I don't care if Iran has a bunch of nukes. The problem is, if Iran has a nuke, they'll probably give the nukes to terrorists to sneak into another country and...

Answer 9

USA the first sole PROPIETER user of atom bomb ( USA used against JAPAN).

If all start making ATOM BOMB, which is propitery of USA; THEN USA can not control the WORLD. It is natural that the SOLE PROPIETER HAS THE RIGHT OVER ATOM TECHNOLOGY.


However USA, the propieter, is kind enough to grand permission to other nations for PEACEFUL use.

All can use it for PEACE (except propieter user- USA).

Like POOR india is making deal with USA for peaceful use by POOR Indian.

Why?

INDIA GO NUCLEAR - Why, How, When What ?

TO MEET ENERGY NEED AFTER 60 YEARS India shall go nuclear and sign treaty like 123 / NPT.

Is nuclear deal of India with US is really worth? It worth down the line of 50 - 60 years.

[A}.-Why worth ?

1) Fossile fuel is limited in INDIA and world.,
2) Nuclear fuel is also limited in INDIA AS WELL AS in world but can give enrgy for some years.

[B]. - Con of Nuclear?

Cost of coal based power is Rs 1.50 / KWHcompared to Rs 3.00 /KWH for nuclear.

Like petroleum, Foreign currancy will goout for
1). TECHNOLOGY,
2). FUEL,
3). INSPECTION,
4). EQUIPMENT, ETC
5) dependent on other
6) Possible stopage of fuel on later date (like USA stopped for TARAPUR UNITS, canadian STOPPED FOR RAWTBHATA UNITS)


[C]. - Options for INDIA ?

OPTIONS with little or no foreign currancy OUTGO:

1) WIND mill with limitless energy
2) HYDRAL with limitless life span,
3) SOLAR with limitless life,
4) Municipal waste with limitless life,
5) Agriculture waste WITH LIMITLESS LIFE
6) COAL
7) GAS

OPTION WITH FOREIGN CURRANCY OUTGO:
1) NUCLEAR
2) PETROLEUM

[D] Why 50 - 60 years?

Now INDIA MAY SURVIVE with coal and gas, but after 60 years WIND, SOLAR, HYDRAL, WASTE cannot give sufficient energy for the INDUSTRY.

[E].- What is the option ?

INDIA SHALL USE NUCLEAR OPTION FOR ENERGY GENERATION

[F] What is about foreign currency, dependence?

1). SINCE 50 - 60 YEARS is long. INDIA SHALL EXPLORE IT'S 1800 KM by 2000 km land surface, 100 - 2000 km on sea bed to check if urenium can be extracted economically.
2) USA has formed NSG with 50 countries to deny access to nuclear fuel to countries like NDIA. World has 120 - 150 countries. INDIA can make an extensive search for URANIUM in the remaining POOR countries. It will help that POOR country for their economic unliftment and HELP india to gel fuel. But how does it stop the foreigncurrency outgo? Since these poor contries need is limited to " ROOTI-KAPDE-AUR-MOKAN", in which INDIA is strong enough; it can exchagne those goods with NUCLEAR FUEL ( if available). Since these poor countries does not have economical, technological capability, they will welcome help from INDIA.

[G]. Why this deal ?

If INDIA refused to this proposal, OPTION as in [F] above can not be materialised? Why? Since USA is WORLD DADA, it will influence other ( 125-50 = 75) countries not to allow INDIA for exercising OPTION [F]


[H].- Conclusion ?

INDIAN has no option but to sign the deal.

Answer 10

Scapegoat to start preemptive wars.