Are not all, or, at least, most of the nations, going to have their nuclear arsenals soon?

Question

The history of guns is not a too old one but all the countries are having it now. If all the countries were having nuclear bombs, what would happen then?

Answer 1

I have to say it is doubtful a majority of nations would acquire nuclear weapons. To develop their own, a nation would substantial infrastructure and the economic strength to fuel it. Many nations if they have a healthy economy are likely going to spend the money elsewhere. With IMF and World Bank making outrageous demands to nations they prop up economically its doubtful that once achieving economic independence a nation would put mass resources into nuclear energy.

On top of this, nuclear arms have a precedent of causing sanctions and all sorts of resolutions against nations. There are also few nations left in the world that would not be considered rogue for building nuclear weapons.

In addition, nuclear energy is not as prolific as it once was. Though nuclear energy should be considered a viable option, it has clearly become surrounded by a negative stigma. Many nations will forgo use\ing cleaner nuclear energy for something far worse: fossil fuels. Others are turning toward renewable sources such as wind, solar and hydroelectric to meet their energy needs.

Also, war has changed. Nuclear weapons have been used how many times in actual warfare? They are useful for deterrence in a bipolar or multi-polar world. But so do biological weapons.

In summing up, I don't think it is realistic to believe that most, if not all nations will build nuclear armaments. The history of guns and how they spread while important, is not very comparable. There is much involved in developing nuclear weapons. Some theories have that there are stages in development for civilizations. To get to the point where a nation can develop that technology, they need to get to a certain stage. This does not mean that all of the nations of the world will never get to that critical stage. Few are at this stage now. So to answer your question (finally), it won't be happening soon.

Answer 2

Actually all the countries do have some form of a nuclear weapon that actually can kill and destroy like a bomb. How do we know this.... We sold them to 'em. Yeap our country probably sold some o the nuclear type weapons that Mr. osama and the like have been using to kill our asses. Don't get me wrong.... they probably weren't sold as such. We keep under estimating the third world countries and sell them items that don't work and are missing some safety or actual working mechanism. Or according to our standards, is not accpetable. What we forget is that the terrorists don't give a damn about standard and they love substandard to use to kill and to destroy because it to them is an added possibilty that more will die. So what would happen is what is happening right now. Do you honestly believe that Osama ben key nobe (smile) would've sent his little mounties over here on 9-11 If he didn't already have some form of nuclear response? I mean America is a great country and it's arson can not even be compared to. It keeps many nations in artillery to fight each other. Yes for freedom and for democracy. But there are those times when we have sold to one side and it ended up that it wasn't the side of the greater good. The fact is that we know that everyone has some form of nuclear bomb capability we're just not sure what it is. This is why eveyone is concern. Pres. Bush wants to know, I didn' vote for him, don't really care for him.... not sure if he went into this whole thing for his father's vengeance, or gasoline.... but I know that we do need to know what everyone has so that we are as prepared as we can be.
9-11 was a modern day.... proverbial ..." getting caught with our pants down." We lost so many. It pissed off Pres. Bush, and me, and the nation, and you..... we all wanted to kick *** and retaliate. Now we are in a mess of a war and people are being killed. We didn't go there to fight but went there to respond. We went there to "save face" and demonstrate that you can't come at us with this action without some form of reaction. I just wish the message could've been sent without harming American and without harming innocent bystanders.~

Answer 3

No, not soon. That was a fear 50 years ago, and it hasn't come to pass, it's not likely in the next 50 years, either. Most nations simply can't afford to develop nuclear weapons, and instead, ally themselves with nuclear-armed nations.

Answer 4

I think it would be great for all countries to have nuclear weapons. The reason? Mutually assured destruction. Hopefully if everyone feels threatened, they will work together to solve problems peaceably instead of promoting war and greed and corruption!

Answer 5

i rently looked at a web sight of the banking industry of the world and it is not great.when you think about nuclear hardware, you have to consider the billions of dollars it takes just to put one together, then there is the constant maintenance cost as in time, these weapons do need to be worked on.in the coming worldwide recession, i just see fewer and fewer countries able to afford it

Answer 6

One could certainly wonder.

It could very well happen.

It's a pretty scary though when you think of every nation in the world armed with nuclear weapons. (Especially the rouge or terrorist nations.)

Answer 7

Everyone won't get them. They're way too expensive to build and maintain unless you devote a lot of your resources to getting one or are a very rich nation.
If everyone had them, I'm sure at least one country would use them. Scary, huh?
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end

Answer 8

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 9

Nobody would dare to let one off....

Answer 10

it that a football club?