How come US can make nukes but other nations can't?

[Clair de Lune]

I'm new to P&N so take it easy on me. I think this topic that's been on my mind is a good start in this forum.

Let me tell you little bit about myself. I was born in South Korea and immigrated here when I was 13 in 1994. I'm 27 now and just acquired US citizenship. I am god damn proud of being an American and have immense pride. And thanks to my heritage, in my opinion, I also have a healthy view of US as an outside-looking-in kind of deal.

I think we all know that every country censors/downplays/omits/minimizes certain news to make themselves look better to the people. You see extreme measures of censorship like seen in middle east or even China. This makes the citizens biased toward their own country, that's fine.

US does it too. I mean you'd be a fool to truly think USA acts for the best interest of the world. At the end of the day, it's all politics, power play and self interest (which is fine).

Now I'll get straight to the point.

How come US can make and own nukes but can tell rest of the world to not do it? Sure, it holds some water to stop crazies like middle east and North Korea because they're outright malicious. But US have no biz telling rest of the countries what to do, especially they hypocritically own tons themselves.

I remember last year there was news about India trying to build nukes. Then the news broke out here in a very negative light. WTF is wrong with India wanting to build nukes? What makes India any different than US? And who the hell is US to tell India what not to do?

I also think many of the Americans don't understand why South Koreans have lots of anti-American sentiments. I know why. I understand both sides actually as a Korean-American. SK is very grateful for US helping us against NK & China in Korean War. But I also know it wasn't an act of self interest. It was a puppet war between Russia and US, Communism vs Democracy, or winning the last era of Cold War. Do you think US intervened out of sheer good will? USA is not world police.

Since the end of Korean War 60 years ago to today, US just won't let go of South Korea to be on their own (That's how SKs feel now). US also has many restrictions on South Korea.. even though SK is now more than capable to defend on their own.

In 80s, South Korea wanted to make nukes themselves. Not because they're crazy, insane and evil just like NK. That's the portrayal of western media, just as we see how crazy China biases news to their own people. SK, India, or ANYONE wants to make nukes because of the VERY SAME REASON United States have- a political advantage.

Sure, arms race is a very bad thing. But as it stands today, US is the one holding all the nukes while telling others not to do it.

I think the only answer I've heard about this is only a self-righteous one- US can make them because they're the good guys and others can't because they will use it for bad things. Bull-fucking-shit. That's like a Christian telling an atheist his religion is true because his own bible tells him so.

 

[Newbian]

Because we at the time have enough alliances with most of the other countries that have nukes to condemn anyone else from building them and worrying about it.

Just because we tell them not to though they usually will build them anyway and it's their right to do what they want as long as they don't use them against us but it's just a way we try to control the world like many other countries have done over time.

It may not be right but many people think it's what we have to do sadly.

 

[Clair de Lune]

Originally posted by: Newbian
Because we at the time have enough alliances with most of the other countries that have nukes to condemn anyone else from building them and worrying about it.

Just because we tell them not to though they usually will build them anyway and it's their right to do what they want as long as they don't use them against us but it's just a way we try to control the world like many other countries have done over time.

Well good, that you see it for what it is. I think I've spoken with too many rednecks who blindly believe US is the saint of the world, the defender of justice and anyone who disagrees or opposes them are evil.

And no I don't think US just sits there if others want to build nuke. US will convince UN (which US has the biggest influence on and vote count in) to go ape shit and introduce various economic and political sanctions on the country trying to build nukes... all in the while US is being the biggest nuke stake holder.

 

[Newbian]

How far apart are nuclear weapons from nuclear power plants and reactors for submarines and such?

 

[Clair de Lune]

Originally posted by: Newbian

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune

Originally posted by: Newbian
Because we at the time have enough alliances with most of the other countries that have nukes to condemn anyone else from building them and worrying about it.

Just because we tell them not to though they usually will build them anyway and it's their right to do what they want as long as they don't use them against us but it's just a way we try to control the world like many other countries have done over time.

Well good, that you see it for what it is. I think I've spoken with too many rednecks who blindly believe US is the saint of the world, the defender of justice and anyone who disagrees or opposes them are evil.

And no I don't think US just sits there if others want to build nuke. US will convince UN (which US has the biggest influence on and vote count in) to go ape shit and introduce various economic and political sanctions on the country trying to build nukes... all in the while US is being the biggest nuke stake holder.

I thought Russia still has more nukes then us?

Right. And because of that Russia don't give a fuck what USA has to say, and USA can't do anything.

All in the while USA bullies little 'lesser countries' to have them stop building nukes. But they REALLY have no biz telling them what to do.

I don't see Russia getting mad at others building nukes or telling US not to make nukes.

 

[maddogchen]

let me ask you this, do you subscribe to the theory that if everyone had a gun the world would be safer? Because we'd be less hesitant to pull a gun on someone else?

 

[Newbian]

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune

Originally posted by: Newbian

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune

Originally posted by: Newbian
Because we at the time have enough alliances with most of the other countries that have nukes to condemn anyone else from building them and worrying about it.

Just because we tell them not to though they usually will build them anyway and it's their right to do what they want as long as they don't use them against us but it's just a way we try to control the world like many other countries have done over time.

Well good, that you see it for what it is. I think I've spoken with too many rednecks who blindly believe US is the saint of the world, the defender of justice and anyone who disagrees or opposes them are evil.

And no I don't think US just sits there if others want to build nuke. US will convince UN (which US has the biggest influence on and vote count in) to go ape shit and introduce various economic and political sanctions on the country trying to build nukes... all in the while US is being the biggest nuke stake holder.

I thought Russia still has more nukes then us?

Right. And because of that Russia don't give a fuck what USA has to say, and USA can't do anything.

All in the while USA bullies little 'lesser countries' to have them stop building nukes. But they REALLY have no biz telling them what to do.

I don't see Russia getting mad at others building nukes or telling US not to make nukes.

I misread your last sentence and saw it and fixed the post a bit since it got me wondering on that part also.

 

[Modelworks]

Really I think the reason is because of how nukes were invented. The only people at the time that could make them were countries that had huge resources. To get those resources and construct the weapons you had to have a country with a stable government which kept out most of the smaller countries. During that time countries stockpiled the weapons. Now though technology has progressed to the point that even small countries can make a nuclear weapon, regardless of how the government is run . The USA, Russia and China have nukes but they also have treaties where they are reducing the stockpiles and placing bans on building of new weapons. The USA doesn't have a problem with NK defending themselves, as long as they do it through conventional means. When you go nuclear you are doing more than defense since it really is suicide to launch on anyone.

 

[Clair de Lune]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
let me ask you this, do you subscribe to the theory that if everyone had a gun the world would be safer? Because we'd be less hesitant to pull a gun on someone else?

No and that's not what I'm discussing either.

Would you like it if I told you not to buy a gun while I have a storage full of it? And you're like "WTF are you?" and try to get it anyways, then I tell everyone to single you out?

It WOULD make sense if US themselves disarmed while told others not to do it. OR if nothing's wrong with holding nukes, why is US telling others not to do it?

It's hypocrisy anyway you slice it. Again, I'm a proud American. Everyone is a hypocrite too. But you'd be FOOL to think our country is some sort of a special exception.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Newbian
How far apart are nuclear weapons from nuclear power plants and reactors for submarines and such?

Civilian reactors = ~6% enrichment
Nuclear submarines = 90-97% enrichment (well into the weapons grade range)

Civilian reactors + reprocessing => plutonium = bomb grade but plutonium based weapons are a pain in the butt to make.

Uranium gun style bombs are the easiest to make if you have weapons grade uranium. This is why the US has it's undies in a knot over Iran's enrichment program. The ability to enrich uranium is the entrance fee to the nuclear weapons club.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune

Originally posted by: maddogchen
let me ask you this, do you subscribe to the theory that if everyone had a gun the world would be safer? Because we'd be less hesitant to pull a gun on someone else?

Would you like it if I told you not to buy a gun while I have a storage full of it? And you're like "WTF are you?" and try to get it anyways, then I tell everyone to single you out?

It WOULD make sense if US themselves disarmed while told others not to do it. If nothing's wrong with holding nukes, why is US telling others not to do it?

you didn't answer my questions

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Newbian
How far apart are nuclear weapons from nuclear power plants and reactors for submarines and such?

Pretty far.
I worked on a Navy carrier as what they nickname a 'nuke', we looked after the reactor daily operations. The fuel rods used on ships are nowhere near pure enough for a nuclear weapon. You would have to take that material and refine it over and over to make it pure enough and even then the current bombs also use different materials that are not in a reactor.

 

[Clair de Lune]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune

Originally posted by: maddogchen
let me ask you this, do you subscribe to the theory that if everyone had a gun the world would be safer? Because we'd be less hesitant to pull a gun on someone else?

Would you like it if I told you not to buy a gun while I have a storage full of it? And you're like "WTF are you?" and try to get it anyways, then I tell everyone to single you out?

It WOULD make sense if US themselves disarmed while told others not to do it. If nothing's wrong with holding nukes, why is US telling others not to do it?

you didn't answer my questions

I did after edit. Now answer mine. How would you feel?

 

[Newbian]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Newbian
How far apart are nuclear weapons from nuclear power plants and reactors for submarines and such?

Pretty far.
I worked on a Navy carrier as what they nickname a 'nuke', we looked after the reactor daily operations. The fuel rods used on ships are nowhere near pure enough for a nuclear weapon. You would have to take that material and refine it over and over to make it pure enough and even then the current bombs also use different materials that are not in a reactor.

Was just curious if by placing restrictions on nuclear weapon testing was limiting their ability to build these types of items also but it seems 2 different paths from what I am seeing.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Newbian

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Newbian
How far apart are nuclear weapons from nuclear power plants and reactors for submarines and such?

Pretty far.
I worked on a Navy carrier as what they nickname a 'nuke', we looked after the reactor daily operations. The fuel rods used on ships are nowhere near pure enough for a nuclear weapon. You would have to take that material and refine it over and over to make it pure enough and even then the current bombs also use different materials that are not in a reactor.

Was just curious if by placing restrictions on nuclear weapon testing was limiting their ability to build these types of items also but it seems 2 different paths from what I am seeing.

Nope not limiting it at all.
The way they have it set up is that while the reactors do have material that could be used in a weapon , they also contain things you do not want in a weapon like strontium, lithium, and other metals that are added so that it works better for the reactor. Things you would have to remove to use it for a weapon. They do keep a supply of weapons grade material for use in reactors. It is mixed with other materials before they do , so it is never really pure again.

 

[IronWing]

The US holds nukes because it can. You can quote me on this: "As long as the US exists, it will maintain a nuclear arsenal, means of production, and means of delivery for nuclear weapons."

The US tells others not to do the same because it is not in the perceived interests of the US to allow others to hold nuclear weapons. If the US could find a way to disarm the other nuclear powers, friend and foe alike, we would.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: ironwing
The US holds nukes because it can. You can quote me on this: "As long as the US exists, it will maintain a nuclear arsenal, means of production, and means of delivery for nuclear weapons."

The US tells others not to do the same because it is not in the perceived interests of the US to allow others to hold nuclear weapons. If the US could find a way to disarm the other nuclear powers, friend and foe alike, we would.

I think the issue is that its like two people pointing a gun at each other. Nobody wants to put down theirs first. If there was some magic way to destroy all the worlds nuclear weapons at once, I think its possible that they would not be re-constructed. But nobody wants to be the first one to be without them.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune

Originally posted by: maddogchen
let me ask you this, do you subscribe to the theory that if everyone had a gun the world would be safer? Because we'd be less hesitant to pull a gun on someone else?

No and that's not what I'm discussing either.

Would you like it if I told you not to buy a gun while I have a storage full of it? And you're like "WTF are you?" and try to get it anyways, then I tell everyone to single you out?

It WOULD make sense if US themselves disarmed while told others not to do it. OR if nothing's wrong with holding nukes, why is US telling others not to do it?

It's hypocrisy anyway you slice it. Again, I'm a proud American. Everyone is a hypocrite too. But you'd be FOOL to think our country is some sort of a special exception.

Every country says hypocritical things so? I don't see why you are singling out the US either, China doesn't want north korea to have nuclear weapons either. What you don't understand and what I'm getting at is that the smart people in this world know that we'll be closer to Armageddon if every country starts building nuclear weapons. What most of the world and all of the current nuclear powers want is for countries that don't currently have nuclear weapons to never make nuclear weapons. Whats wrong with that?

-smart people know that the less countries with nuclear weapons the better
-smart people know that its almost impossible to go back to a world without nuclear weapons, no nuclear power trusts each other enough to dismantle all their nuclear weapons.

 

[seemingly random]

Because we say so.

And, no more taking it easy on you. Next time, you're going to get it - whether you deserve it or not.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune
Alright, back off noobs. I'm not a chick.

But........with the right surgery! You could be!

 

[Clair de Lune]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Every country says hypocritical things so? I don't see why you are singling out the US either, China doesn't want north korea to have nuclear weapons either.

Right. Everyone is a hypocrite. I'm singling out US because in this specific issue, US _is_ telling others NOT to build nuke.

What most of the world and all of the current nuclear powers want is for countries that don't currently have nuclear weapons to never make nuclear weapons. Whats wrong with that?

BS. Why is it any of US' business? Especially when they have plenty to protect yourselves with it?

See my first example and put yourself in their shoes. How would you feel? I'd be pretty pissed.

 

[nageov3t]

we invented them, we used them, we get to decide?

would SK really want the US to leave? I thought we had the same relationship with South Korea that we had with Japan, wherein we provide for their national security and they get to spend money on stuff like tentacle porn instead of having to build up and maintain a large military to keep North Korea at bay.

doesn't India have nukes? if we ever see a nuke dropped in our lifetimes, I think it's almost a certainty that it'd be in an exchange between India and Pakistan.

 

[Clair de Lune]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
Because we say so.

Good. It's better that you know that than the hicks I've encountered saying crap like, "It's because USA is the defender of justice and mankind, others nuke makers are evil etc"

You see it for what it is- a selfish power play under the charade of superhero (which any other countries in the shoes of US would do the same thing).

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Clair de Lune

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Every country says hypocritical things so? I don't see why you are singling out the US either, China doesn't want north korea to have nuclear weapons either.

Right. Everyone is a hypocrite. I'm singling out US because in this specific issue, US _is_ telling others NOT to build nuke.

What most of the world and all of the current nuclear powers want is for countries that don't currently have nuclear weapons to never make nuclear weapons. Whats wrong with that?

BS. Why is it any of US' business? Especially when they have plenty to protect yourselves with it?

See my first example and put yourself in their shoes. How would you feel? I'd be pretty pissed.

I'm not you, i wouldn't be pissed. I don't own a gun nor do I care to even if someone told me not to have any.
And why are you still singling the US out? Its almost every country telling others not to build a nuke. The US is just the loudest.

plenty to protect ourselves with? nukes act as a deterrent but does not offer full protection.

 

[Clair de Lune]

Originally posted by: loki8481
would SK really want the US to leave? I thought we had the same relationship with South Korea that we had with Japan, wherein we provide for their national security and they get to spend money on stuff like tentacle porn instead of having to build up and maintain a large military to keep North Korea at bay.

Japan lost WWII and it's in their pact to not build shit as the loser of the war.

Not SK. In South Korean's point of view, US won't leave them alone and let them be whatever they want to be. Why can't South Korea build nukes to defend itself against NK? SK's reason is the very same as US'.

It's a power play which leaves a many sour taste in SK' mouth... and resulted in this awkward love/hate relationship with US.