Why is it OK for some countries to have nuclear weapons and not others?

[Craig234]

I don't think they should necessarily be banned. I think they are a good deterrent to large scale conflict.

I just don't see why the US thinks it can decide who can have nukes and who can't. NK and Iran are sovereign nations, they can have nuclear weapons if they want to.

They should be banned. There are arguments why other nations have a 'right' to get them as much as those who have them, but it increases the risk of their use the more who do.

The only way to (nearly) eliminate that risk of nuclear war is to ban them. The deterrence value they have until they're used is not much justification for when they are.

It's a little like all the warnings about Al Queda before 9/11 - Clinton was attacked as 'obsessive' about them, which sounds pretty bad now. And that was far, far smaller.

We came a lot closer to a nuclear war than most people realize already - now we're in a world where we 'trust' NK and Pakistan who have them, and more are likely to get them.

We've gotten used to them, even demanding to keep them, and that's dangerous.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Yeah, because P&N is the intellectual center of the universe with people like dmcowen and Anarchist420 running around.

So now we have the three stooges --dmcowen and Anarchist420 and schneiderguy...

 

[Fayd]

Why does the US make a big stink about certain countries developing nuclear weapons?

The US is the only country that's ever used a nuclear weapon in war. And we start way more wars than Iran or North Korea.

If it's anyone that shouldn't have nukes, it's the US, since we can't be trusted not to use them and not to invade half of the countries on the Earth.

because we're the most powerful country on earth, we make the rules, and it's not in our best interests to let countries who are potentially unfriendly to us develop nuclear weapons.

 

[khon]

The PC answer is that some countries are either too unstable to keep the nukes safe, or too likely to use them.

The real answer is that we would like our side to have them, and the enemy not to have them. It has nothing to do with fairness, objective criteria or morality, it's simply about power.

 

[Fayd]

They should be banned. There are arguments why other nations have a 'right' to get them as much as those who have them, but it increases the risk of their use the more who do.

The only way to (nearly) eliminate that risk of nuclear war is to ban them. The deterrence value they have until they're used is not much justification for when they are.

It's a little like all the warnings about Al Queda before 9/11 - Clinton was attacked as 'obsessive' about them, which sounds pretty bad now. And that was far, far smaller.

We came a lot closer to a nuclear war than most people realize already - now we're in a world where we 'trust' NK and Pakistan who have them, and more are likely to get them.

We've gotten used to them, even demanding to keep them, and that's dangerous.

do you expect any country to actually abide by such a ban? banned weapon research just goes to black budget, it certainly doesn't stop.

 

[pcgeek11]

Maybe if NK and Iran had nuclear weapons the US wouldn't be so eager to start shit?

If is a very small word with a damn big meaning. They don't so it doesn't matter.

IF I had a million dollars and you had a feather in your ass we would both be tickled.

 

[PingviN]

Nukes in Russia and the U.S. probably helps in keeping world order. The two superpowers wont get in each others hair when both sides are fully capable of laying waste to pretty much the entire world. They're both modern, democratic (somewhat, at least) and there is no gains to be had from a nuclear war. Iran and North Korea on the other hand, is popped full with lunatics, be it idealistic freaks or religious crazies. They are already cut off from the civilized world, they are totalitarian and them having nukes would disturb world order.

Sure, the U.S. do suffer from some sort of world police-disorder where they feel the need to be flexing their muscles in the face of commies, Iraqis, Talibans and terrorists, but still - nukes were only used twice since their creation, despite several hard-fought wars of which the U.S. lost most. The U.S. does not go around nuking other nations, nor does Russia (or any other country currently carrying nukes). With Iran and NK, one can't be so sure. That is why they should not be allowed WMDs.

 

[Craig234]

do you expect any country to actually abide by such a ban? banned weapon research just goes to black budget, it certainly doesn't stop.

It's not a question of expecting them to abide, it's a question of having an effective monitoring in place, without which there wouldn't be an agreement.

This would presumably be a role for the IAEA, under the UN, required to be able to detect violations globally.

 

[MotF Bane]

For the same reason we don't sell guns to mentally insane and felons.

/thread

 

[Macamus Prime]

The US send's it's men and women to die on the battlefield.

NK and Iran just kill their people.

Eitherway, the common person is murdered at the leader's will.

 

[BeauJangles]

Because we will never get rid of them all nor should we, but we definitely don't need more in the world.

The flaw in that thinking is that nuclear non-proliferation, which has been a tremendous success over the past seventy years, is based on the principle that all countries are working towards a nuclear-free future. Now that countries see 'non-proliferation' for what it is, the incentives to comply or follow along are lower.

If the US, China, Russia, etc all want to hang on to their nuclear weapons while preventing others from obtaining them, they should expect to spend more resources, more manpower, and shed more blood than ever before.

 

[rudder]

In the U.S. the likelihood of the control of our nuclear arsenal changing... is slim to none. There are extensive controls in place and even being able to launch a nuke is a secure process.

In Pakistan for instance... not so much. Control of the nuke inventory could change overnight. A nuke could walk off and no one would notice.

That is why the is reluctance on the part of countries like the U.S. to allow places like Iran, NK, Pakistan, etc into the nuclear club.

 

[EagleKeeper]

But the US is even crazier than NK and Iran :hmm:

So you have decided to admit that you are trolling rather than trying for a honest discussion.

 

[Karl Agathon]

Nice job ignoring everything else. Fuck it. You're obviously trolling. :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

By your dumb logic the US was invaded during WW2 because foreign operatives infiltrated the US.

:thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

We don't want other people to have them because it would make the US less powerful and less able to control international action. Period.

The argument that some countries are 'insane' is ridiculous and completely unsupported by reality. Neither Iran nor North Korea are 'crazy', and the reason why their possession of nukes is 'bad' is because it's bad for the US. I know it's convenient to tell ourselves that people who oppose the US are nuts, but you're really doing everyone a disservice because it prevents us from addressing the issue rationally. (we should all note the irony of our irrational position that these regimes are irrational)

 

[a777pilot]

For the same reason we don't sell guns to mentally insane and felons.

Good answer.

 

[fskimospy]

Good answer.

No, it's a retarded answer.

 

[boochi]

We don't want other people to have them because it would make the US less powerful and less able to control international action. Period.

The argument that some countries are 'insane' is ridiculous and completely unsupported by reality. Neither Iran nor North Korea are 'crazy', and the reason why their possession of nukes is 'bad' is because it's bad for the US. I know it's convenient to tell ourselves that people who oppose the US are nuts, but you're really doing everyone a disservice because it prevents us from addressing the issue rationally. (we should all note the irony of our irrational position that these regimes are irrational)

You can't fix stupid

 

[fskimospy]

You can't fix stupid

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or not.

 

[Gamingphreek]

I'm focusing on both. Most of the "good" countries that have nuclear weapons have caused most of the wars in the last century or so. There's no reason that they can be trusted to have nuclear weapons but Iran and North Korea (historically much more peaceful countries) can't.

Really? They have caused most of the wars? We'll go through the most notable wars...

WWI - Pretty sure that after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, everything just imploded from there due to alliances as far as Europe is concerned. The sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmerman Telegram were provocation enough for the US to enter if you ask me.

WWII - We were attacked.

Korean War - Pretty sure the North invaded the South (A UN ally) necessitating a response.

Vietnam - The north was attacking the French occupied South. The French ran away and the US wasn't going to let the south be overrun.

Gulf War - Saddam invades Kuwait. Unacceptable.

Somalia - UN presence was there to prevent genocide when Pakistani peacekeepers were killed. Genocide = unacceptable.

Afghanistan - 9/11 ring any bells?

Iraq - Harboring insurgents that were making life difficult in Afghanistan. Repeatedly ignoring UN Resolutions to disarm. Mass bombings against militant groups. I personally think that while Saddam did not directly engage the US/UN with his military forces, that doesn't mean that there wasn't support for the forces that were engaged with the US/UN.

Libya - I'm pretty sure no one has invaded Libya. I'm equally sure that Quadaffi started the civil war and people cried out to the UN/US for help.

It is also important to note that in all of these cases the conflict was not initiated on the US/UN side for territorial/monetary gain. In the most general sense, if the US/UN were not attacked, crimes against humanity necessitated some sort of response.

If you don't like being world power, move to another country. Isolationism has never ever worked in the past. We are all countries in this world.

-GP

 

[rcpratt]

I know this is just schneiderguy entertaining himself for the day, but at least it entertained me, too.

Those with the power make the rules. Welcome to the world.

 

[Woofmeister]

You are an idiot! The reason why the United States (along with Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China) are allowed to have nuclear weapons while other countries are not not is because of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which has been signed by 189 countries. Under the NPT, the five countries listed above are declared nuclear weapons states and all other countries that are signatories to the treaty agree that they will not develop nuclear weapons in exchange for assistance with peaceful nuclear programs.

It's got nothing to do with one country being "more moral" than the other or "less crazy" than the other. It has to do with a freely negotiated treaty signed by sovereign states.

India, Pakistan and Israel are entitled to develop their own nuclear weapons because they are non-signatories to the NPT. All other countries are signatories and their attempts to develop nuclear weapons (ahem, Iran, South Africa, Libya, Syria) are violations of a treaty that they voluntarily signed.

North Korea is a special case having withdrawn from the treaty after having been caught violating it while still a signatory.

Any other questions troll?

 

[fskimospy]

Really? They have caused most of the wars? We'll go through the most notable wars...

WWI - Pretty sure that after the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, everything just imploded from there due to alliances as far as Europe is concerned. The sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmerman Telegram were provocation enough for the US to enter if you ask me.

WWII - We were attacked.

Korean War - Pretty sure the North invaded the South (A UN ally) necessitating a response.

Vietnam - The north was attacking the French occupied South. The French ran away and the US wasn't going to let the south be overrun.

Gulf War - Saddam invades Kuwait. Unacceptable.

Somalia - UN presence was there to prevent genocide when Pakistani peacekeepers were killed. Genocide = unacceptable.

Afghanistan - 9/11 ring any bells?

Iraq - Harboring insurgents that were making life difficult in Afghanistan. Repeatedly ignoring UN Resolutions to disarm. Mass bombings against militant groups. I personally think that while Saddam did not directly engage the US/UN with his military forces, that doesn't mean that there wasn't support for the forces that were engaged with the US/UN.

Libya - I'm pretty sure no one has invaded Libya. I'm equally sure that Quadaffi started the civil war and people cried out to the UN/US for help.

It is also important to note that in all of these cases the conflict was not initiated on the US/UN side for territorial/monetary gain. In the most general sense, if the US/UN were not attacked, crimes against humanity necessitated some sort of response.

If you don't like being world power, move to another country. Isolationism has never ever worked in the past. We are all countries in this world.

-GP

Dude, those are pretty weak justifications for some of those wars. (WW1, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq)

Seriously. Some of the wars the US have been justified, some not so much. It's okay to admit that.

 

[Munky]

Because we A'Mericans are the avatar of righteousness, and them gooks be terrrists.

/sarcasm

 

[Gamingphreek]

Dude, those are pretty weak justifications for some of those wars. (WW1, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq)

Seriously. Some of the wars the US have been justified, some not so much. It's okay to admit that.

WWI is a weak justification??

The fact that a cruise ship was sunk and then we intercepted a telegram that was attempting to plan an attack??

As was said earlier, you are clearly just trolling. No amount of logic or reason is going to change that.

-GP