'Is it right that 'we' can have nuclear weapons while 'they' cannot?

Question

I am writing a Degree (final year) level essay here and would appreciate advice from people with appropriate knowledge. I am not trying to initiate a 'talking-shop' debate.

Unfortunately as an Economics student this Politics module (which seems to be based heavily on International Relations theories I have never had the opportunity to study) is really challenging me and the deadline is approaching.

Your advice is much appreciated.

Answer 1

While it certainly isn't "fair" that "we" can have nuclear weapons and "they" cannot, it is nonetheless "right." It is a continuation of a doctrine of using intimidation via nuclear weapons to influence foreign policy initially advocated by James F. Byrnes in the Truman administration immediately following the initial development of nuclear weapons. As the United States made the substantial investment for that development, the United States was fully entitled to reap the political benefits of that development. While others, such as Henry L. Stimson, had a different opinion as to how nuclear weapon technology should have been handled politically after WWII, it was Byrnes' approach that was rightfully adopted by the United States. Similarly, the majority of countries that have subsequently developed nuclear weapons have taken an approximately similar approach. Accordingly, countries with nuclear weapons have been able to exert political pressure over countries without nuclear weapons. Historically, national sovereignty was not a naturally pre-existing condition of humanity. Rather, national sovereignty has practically always been achieved through the use of force, so it is not inapt that sovereign nations with superior means of projecting force are able to politically subjugate nations lacking such means. Therefore, there is nothing that isn't "right" about "we" having nuclear weapons and "they" not having nuclear weapons.

Answer 2

Look there is no fast and hard rules when it comes to this issue. Yeh yeh the UN Charter states that bla bla bla... times have changed. Forever.

In Iran's case, it is not only right to stop the Iranians but the duty of the international community to make sure that this country cannot have a nuclear programme - NOT EVEN UNDER IAEA VERIFICATION. Better never than doubt.

In a world of "internationally accepted" behaviour, no government/country can be allowed to carry on business as usual and at the same time vowing destruction of another country; harbor, sponsor and aid extremist groups who have made mass murders of civilians their full time occupation.

As an economic student, you should know that terrorist activities are contrary to a country's economy - bad for business.

Answer 3

Last 2 weeks Spooks (BBC 1 , on today) was totally about that. Nuclear power is a level how high economy of that country doing. For an example in ancient India the Elephant was the gift from the more powerful to less powerful head of tribe. Just in one year the gift demolished economy of new owner. Nuclear power is the similar thing but more complicated as it is a barometer of the Political Power. So it is not about nuclear power (smoke screen). It is about World Domination in every aspect. I presume that in next 10 years the picture will be changed dramatically as more Muslims will be grown in the Europe that on Asia itself

Answer 4

Yes it is right because Western democracies are bound by international conventions, rulw of law and democratic institutions that make it extremely difficult to launch nuclear weapons unless in self-defence. Rouge nations on the other hand cannot be trusted with nuclear warheads due to these countries' track record and unpredictability.

It is all very well to say that the West should set a moral example by disarming nuclear weapons but we must be practical and admit that there is next to no chance that rouge nations will take heed of that example, and what we would be left with is a situation where we leave our back door open to nuclear attacks.

Answer 5

its funny how some people say the western nations can be trusted and others can't. US is the only country in the world to use the atomic bomb. US and Britain bombed and killed the most people in the world ie Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc
enough with the hypocrisy.
India can have it but Pakistan can?, Israel can have it (not technically) but Iran cant? worlds most dangerous countries ie Britain and US, Israel can have it? come on have some common sense. onl reason they wont allow others to have it is because they dont want them to be able to defend themselves and they themselves will remain the only superpowers! unchallenged. everything else is a lie

Answer 6

Question is, what is 'right'? Nucleur and 'conventional' weapons are similar. Those who get it first will use it first. The difference is that the massive result of nucleur devastation is a deterrent to its use. Thus we've had relative peace for 72 years. Is it 'right'? 'Rightness' doesn't come into it. Each nation and tribe defends itself. we and our allies have it. We know proliferation increases the chance of a fanatic getting it. So we must prevent them doing so, as best as we can.

Answer 7

It's gray. It's not right and it's not wrong. And as long as you try to pick "one side" and argue it you will always be confused because the other side of the argument will make sense to you as well. So I would just arbitrarily pick one side of the argument (if you don't naturally favor one) and run with it for the paper if an argument that both are right is not an option.

Answer 8

It is always better to be militarily superior to your enemy.

It's common sense. If someone broke into your house would you prefer to have a gun on a liberal-feather-and-whine-stick? Which would you prefer for your attacker to have?

Answer 9

Is it right that a person without a prison record can own a gun, while a convicted felon cannot.

Answer 10

the only reason we The United States of America say that no one else can have nukes is because were trying to rid the world of them so that we can disarm oursleves after everyone else has