Who has the right to say which countries can and which countries can't have nuclear weapons and/or power?

Question

Personally i believe no country should have the right to nuclear weapons and power if other alternative power sources are available such as wind energy.

well i do't mean runnin the whole world on wind power we could also use solar, water and there are alot more.

Answer 1

the king of the mountain (figuratively)

Answer 2

Without some country or some entity having the final word, we would have chaos.

As a rule, the perennial mistake America makes is being too kind and tolerant of other nations, even when it is obvious they cannot be trusted.

Imagine how much better the world would have been if, after Germany surrendered in WWII, America turned to Stalin and said, "Look bud, your country has lost about 10 million soldiers, and 12 million civilians in this war. Your armies are exhausted, and you don't have the resources to continue fighting. We're not going leave this war without a lasting solution, so here's the deal: from this point on, if any country tries to develop nuclear weapons, we will immediately bomb that country.

First, we will bomb a less populated area, but if this country does not immediately renounce all nuclear aspirations, we will bomb their capital, and that will be the end of it."

Sounds harsh? But it would have kept the nuclear genie in the bottle. No one would ever have used, or threatened to use, nuclear weapons again.

To placate and reassure the world, we could have promised that we would never use nuclear weapons again, a very easy promise to keep considering how loathe any American President or Congress would be to authorize the use of such weapons.

Imagine the difference: no Cold War. No Communist takeover of Middle and Eastern Europe. Think of the savings of not having to build up the military for those 50-some years against the Communist menace.

In this world, there must be some governing order. We hoped the United Nations would fill this void, but this impotent, radically-oriented, and do-nothing organization has proven itself incompetent. Everyone laughs at UN Resolutions. Heck, Saddam Hussein racked up 17 sternly-worded Resolutions.

America is not a threat to the civilized world, we ARE the civilized world. No other nation on earth is so generous, compassionate, and noble as the United States of America. Wherever there is disaster, or people in need, the U.S. tries to help. We give much more foreign aid than any country on earth.

The U.S. invented this nuclear technology, and it can be used for safe, civilian purposes. Nuclear weapons should never have been allowed to proliferate; that was a grave mistake the United States made in trying to be neutral in the internal affairs of other countries. The whole world would have benefitted if we had "laid down the law."

The U.S. has shown its impeccable record of restraint. Not only have we not used nuclear weapons since Japan (and even Japan readily admits it was the best solution; a land war would have cost millions of lives), but we have never threatened anyone with them. Do you see the vast difference between how the U.S. acts and these illigitmate, rogue nations? If Iran got nuke technology, THE FIRST THING they would do is arrogantly and irresponsibly assert their right to use them, any way they see fit.

Someone needs to be the caretaker of nuclear technology. Someday, we will make advances that will greatly benefit all of mankind. The promise of clean, safe, and extremely cheap nuclear energy has not yet been realized. Who better to fulfill this dream than the country that invented the technology in the first place?

Answer 3

1. Free-man supporting countries, such as the US, have an obligation to protect their inhabitants, such as me. Nukes get a bad rap; I prefer the ability to stand down mega-armies with the threat of a nuke, rather than having them mow us (our men on battlefields) down, simply by the numbers.

2. The datacenter(s) that support the web - such as yahoo - suck up megawatts, used in part by you. The alternative power supplies (those not typically in our base power - nukes, coal, hydro...) are so pitifully unfit for these loads that it just isn't worth the investment.

Answer 4

your personal belief is enlightened; but, unworkable. nations are the product of human creation, with all the self-interest and common beliefs one would expect from any single human specimen. what one wants and what is actually in their best interest, connect all too rarely.

as to your question..."countries" have a right to say whatever they wish. as to how much significance that will carry is a moving target. for example...Iran says it has no program to develop nuclear weapons. it says it wants to develop it's own system for nuclear power that would not be impacted by the influence of outside countries. thus saving it's oil and gas resource's to generate income from the world.
the current administration says we can't trust the Iranians. they want a nuclear weapon to sell or provide to terrorists. they must let outside countries in to look at all their nuclear efforts.
the world has varying degrees of agreement with both positions. and ideas about the urgency for a decision. what we will likely end up with, at some future point, is a nuclear Iran. like it or not.

Answer 5

It seems that the United States decides who can have nuclear capabilities. The United Nations also has a role in deciding but they usually side with the United States. It's in many ways the continuation of the Cold War when it was decided by the major powers who would be allow to be nuclear or not.

Answer 6

The UN Security Council basically runs the world.

Which means that the Big Nuclear Bullies have the right to push everyone else around and when they try to push back, they get slapped down hard.

It's a terrible state of affairs.

Answer 7

Apparently the U.S. does... I'm not sure why.

And isn't it interesting how we are so worried that fanatic countries will get the bomb and do great damage.. and yet it is only America that has actually ever used the bomb against its enemies.

Methinks we doth protest way too much. from both sides of our face.

Answer 8

I agree, because nuclear power and weapons can kill so many people and they can harm the ecosystem. Like in Russia when that plant exploded, it killed so many people. I personally think we shouldn't even use oil and gasoline when we can have our vehicles run on the sun or other fuels that are good for the planet.

Answer 9

Countries that are run by people like Saddam Hussein and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should not have nukes. If you can't understand the difference between a country such as the USA or England having nuke capabilites and a country like Iran, I can't help you.

Answer 10

Exactly, but no one is honest enough to admit that. Instead the US, simply because it has so much military power, invents phony reasons to criticize others having about 1% of what we have and then invade them if they don't back down.

Answer 11

Judging from past experience, the UN seems to be the official decider but can't seem to enforce or doesn't seem to care to enforce their decisions.