Just a question... *grin* What country/countries should NOT be allowed to possess Nuclear Weapons?

[dahunan]

Just a question... *grin* What country/countries should NOT be allowed to possess Nuclear Weapons?

 

[Fencer128]

What a great question! I will answer it directly - but first give me a few lines to lay out the (some obvious) ground rules:

1. Once the genie's out of the bottle there's no getting back in. The US, UK, India, etc. are highly, highly unlikely in the absence of a "better" technology to disavow themeselves of nuclear capacity.

2. Who decides what is "allowed"? The UN, the US, the nuclear club?

3. Every country has a right to self-defence.

Now, given the above - it being of sober and unbiased mind - I see no reason why most of the world, with the example set by the most powerful nations, shouldn't be "allowed" to develop nuclear weapons.

I wouldn't want NK to have nukes - but what do you say to them directly? Nothing - you can't reason this out. Luckily most of the world don't want NK to have nukes either, which is good because they'll support any sanctions/inspections we want to demand. They'll support that because NK are a highly oppressive, unpredictable and glory seeking nation.

Now Iran. Not quite in the same league as NK. Not quite the same level of support. Never going to stop them getting nukes in the long term IMHO.

Now Japan. They don't want nukes. If they did they could do it quickly and easily as no-one could deny them for long.

So.

I think that quasi-universally condemned, isolationistic, unpredictable and oppressive regimes should not be allowed nukes (NK springs to mind without consulting the CIA world factbook).

I wouldn't like countries hostlie to my own to obtain nukes (good old spying and subterfuge works in the short term here) but I can see real reason to actually deny them.

Solution - the only solution - is to try to talk around nations or force them into isolation due to a universal distaste of the international community.

Don't see any other options.

Andy

EDIT: The nuclear club scaling back it's arsenal at every level would also be a good thing for the short term (ie no small nuke developments).

 

[AnImuS]

"think that quai-universally condemned, isolationistic, unpredictable and oppressive regimes should not be allowed nukes (NK springs to mind without consulting the CIA world factbook)."

Iran would also fit into this catagory.

I agree with the above statments aswell.
Though it seems when countries have Nukes its almost impossible to start a war with them for the obvious reasons.
(coldwar,pakistan-india,US-NK) so who knows it might end up helping to prevent wars???

 

[zantac]

everyone =)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Nukes for everyone - why discriminate against those "less fortunate"



CkG

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: AnImuS
"think that quai-universally condemned, isolationistic, unpredictable and oppressive regimes should not be allowed nukes (NK springs to mind without consulting the CIA world factbook)."

Iran would also fit into this catagory.

I agree with the above statments aswell.
Though it seems when countries have Nukes its almost impossible to start a war with them for the obvious reasons.
(coldwar,pakistan-india,US-NK) so who knows it might end up helping to prevent wars???

But I don't think Iran would. Iran, however slowly, are moving progressively with a democratically elected parliment I believe. It may well only be a short time before popular opinion demands that electability extends to the upper echelons - especially if a good impression is made in new Iraq. The oppression that goes on in Iran does not compare in severity to that which occurs in NK. You're unlikely to find as wide a universal condemnation of Iran as you will NK. For all these reasons - as in my first post - I do not group them as being in the same "class".

Cheers,

Andy

 

[AnImuS]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: AnImuS
"think that quai-universally condemned, isolationistic, unpredictable and oppressive regimes should not be allowed nukes (NK springs to mind without consulting the CIA world factbook)."

Iran would also fit into this catagory.

I agree with the above statments aswell.
Though it seems when countries have Nukes its almost impossible to start a war with them for the obvious reasons.
(coldwar,pakistan-india,US-NK) so who knows it might end up helping to prevent wars???

But I don't think Iran would. Iran, however slowly, are moving progressively with a democratically elected parliment I believe. It may well only be a short time before popular opinion demands that electability extends to the upper echelons - especially if a good impression is made in new Iraq. The oppression that goes on in Iran does not compare in severity to that which occurs in NK. You're unlikely to find as wide a universal condemnation of Iran as you will NK. For all these reasons - as in my first post - I do not group them as being in the same "class".

Cheers,

Andy

Looking back at history im not too optimistic it will be overturned. Though im hopeful,but we will have to see...

 

[TheBoyBlunder]

Ignoring the ground rules, all of them shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

 

[Trezza]

Nukes should be like a trendy club. If your not already on the guest list then your not getting in.

 

[sandorski]

Every country should be given 1 nuke. If someone uses their nuke, the victim can use their nuke on the agressor. The agressor loses their right to having a nuke for 20(or some other time period) years, the defender gets a replacement as soon as the conflict is over. The agressor also gets punished in some other way, perhaps having their government dissolved and rule taken over by some International committee. In a similar way, if an agressor invades a country using conventional means, the defender can use their nuke, the agressor will suffer asif it used it's nuke first if it responds with it's nuke.

Of course the above would never work and nukes would be used, likely, on a regular basis.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Any country that has used, possesses, plans to develop, or has plans for using nukes . . . should NOT be allowed to possess nukes.

 

[Tab]

Nobody, however my vote would goto North Korea. However I do have a feeling their situitation is over exaggerated by the media.

 

[glenn1]

For most people, i think the apprehension one feels about a country acquiring nukes scales directly with its propensity to use it. I forget who said it, but i think this expression on the subject is apt...

"I don't fear the ruler who wants 1000 nuclear weapons, i fear the ruler who only wants one."

 

[LunarRay]

Do away with the reason to have them.... Let us become Earthers... abolish all borders, all nationalities and alliances... we become one nation. We do away with all armies and every thing that used to guarantee sovereignty. We simply have police. We draw up a constitution and be at the business of transferring our national debt to all the other people of the world.

 

[mastertech01]

The latest conventional technology weapons, and all the new tech stuff coming down the pike, would make for a much more efficient and effective solution. No one really NEEDS nukes. IMHO.

 

[CaptnKirk]

If nuclear technology could be limited to peaceful applications such as medical, power production,
food irradiation, anyone should have access to it, but therin lies the rub.
Breeder reacters make more material, some has use as weapons, and some is a long lived residual waste.
Since no country, including ours should have doomsday devices - nuclear bombs, how could any country be allowed or trusted to
have the material that could re-directed from the peacful application into either the weapons grade variety, or uncontrolled disposal
of the residues. All the countries that have Nukes want to keep them, those that don't say that they are going to be used for
power generation, etc., but how can anyone be sure that there is no clandestine alterior motive there ?
Still in the long run - what do you do with the waste ?

 

[B00ne]

Imho, not a single country, person, entity on earth should have any such horrible weapons: nuclear, biological, chemical, whatever other horror mankind invents...

that way everyone on the planet is safer

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Every country should be given 1 nuke. If someone uses their nuke, the victim can use their nuke on the agressor. The agressor loses their right to having a nuke for 20(or some other time period) years, the defender gets a replacement as soon as the conflict is over. The agressor also gets punished in some other way, perhaps having their government dissolved and rule taken over by some International committee. In a similar way, if an agressor invades a country using conventional means, the defender can use their nuke, the agressor will suffer asif it used it's nuke first if it responds with it's nuke.

Of course the above would never work and nukes would be used, likely, on a regular basis.

course the world would be a wonderful place.

well not really. you've just given government free reign to oppress their own people. no one can intervene. peace at ANY price

its like if germany liquidated its jews without that pesky invasion of other countries. that would have been dandy

 

[notfred]

either all countries or no countries.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: sandorski
Every country should be given 1 nuke. If someone uses their nuke, the victim can use their nuke on the agressor. The agressor loses their right to having a nuke for 20(or some other time period) years, the defender gets a replacement as soon as the conflict is over. The agressor also gets punished in some other way, perhaps having their government dissolved and rule taken over by some International committee. In a similar way, if an agressor invades a country using conventional means, the defender can use their nuke, the agressor will suffer asif it used it's nuke first if it responds with it's nuke.

Of course the above would never work and nukes would be used, likely, on a regular basis.

course the world would be a wonderful place.

well not really. you've just given government free reign to oppress their own people. no one can intervene. peace at ANY price

its like if germany liquidated its jews without that pesky invasion of other countries. that would have been dandy

There's no "perfection".

 

[0roo0roo]

its just that peace at any price is not peace worth having.