Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes all the nations should have nuclear weapons.

    As it comes directly to nations security , it should b use carefully and at the time it is needed most ,nuclear is a stronger way to every nation to defend . But the person using it should have legal and national permission to use it ,but only if needed at most

  • All countries have a right to defend themselves with nuclear weapons, even when they lack the capacity in conventional weapons

    The nation-state is the fundamental building block of the international system, and is recognized as such in all international treaties and organizations. States are recognized as having the right to defend themselves, and this right must extend to the possession of nuclear deterrence. Often states lack the capacity to defend themselves with conventional weapons. This is particularly true of poor and small states. Even wealthy, small states are susceptible to foreign attack, since their wealth cannot make up for their lack of manpower. With a nuclear deterrent, all states become equal in terms of ability to do harm to one another.[1] If a large state attempts to intimidate, or even invade a smaller neighbour, it will be unable to effectively cow it, since the small state will have the power to grievously wound, or even destroy, the would-be invader with a few well-placed nuclear missiles.[2] For example, the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 would likely never have occurred, as Russia would have thought twice when considering the potential loss of several of its cities it would need to exchange for a small piece of Georgian territory. Clearly, nuclear weapons serve in many ways to equalize states irrespective of size, allowing them to more effectively defend themselves. Furthermore, countries will only use nuclear weapons in the vent of existential threat. This is why, for example, North Korea has not used nuclear weapons; for it, like all other states, survival is the order of the day, and using nuclear weapons aggressively would spell its certain destruction. Countries will behave rationally with regard to the use of nuclear weapons, as they have done since their invention and initial proliferation. Weapons in the hands of more people will thus not result in the greater risk of their use.

  • Nukes for all

    If we have them then why can't anyone else? Face it north korea already has them and they're a pretty big threat to the U.S. Also countries need to be able to defend themselves, if a country starts an all out nuclear war then you going to want something to retaliate with.

  • Nukes for all

    If we have them then why can't anyone else? Face it north korea already has them and they're a pretty big threat to the U.S. Also countries need to be able to defend themselves, if a country starts an all out nuclear war then you going to want something to retaliate with.

  • I believe all nations have a right to nuclear weapons.

    Nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous, created from extremely smart people. Like guns, which were created a long time ago, almost all nations became adapted to using guns as their means of offense and defense. Eventually, I believe that as nuclear weapon technology become known to all nations, they will create it, as a means of power, giving them to right to use it whether we like it or not.

  • 1.To be fair.2.They won't really use it.3.Helps develop its science and economy for those who can afford.

    1.It means that all nations has the right to invent, own, freedom of decide to use it or not,and when they create or own it, there should be no sanction from international society. Any country, regardless of different idealism, religion size and power should have the same right, at least, to own nuclear weapon. Those who own it try to control it and have more stake in contradiction, that is one reason why Islamic state always revenge the US ,their nation pride is being overrode.
    2. Throughout history we can see that even more and more countries are capable of creating nuclear weapon, still it was used only by the US to stop Japan in WW2. Since all the people know the devastation of it ,it has become a symbol of deterrence's rather than real usage. When small countries own it, it is a deterrence to big ones when they plan to invade arbitrarily. Less suppress and more peace.
    3.Just see how astronomic achievement have helped boost the economy in china and the US.

  • Yeah I do think all nations should have a right to nuclear weapons

    Every nation should be able to defend themselves if they feel the need to do so. Nuclear weapons is one way they can be. As such I don't see why all nations shouldn't have the right to them. Obviously you'd need to use them carefully and responsibly if you were going to, but.....I think they should all have the initial right to them. If they abuse it, maybe then take it away, but only then.

  • No nukes pls

    You say that you should only take it away a after they've abused it, but think about it if they use like you said they would there would be nobody to stop them. A retaliation would most likely happen if they did launch the nukes and then that place would be uninhabitable for hundreds of years

  • No they don't.

    Not all countries need to have nuclear weapons because humans are not meant to kill each other, but we have to because others do it for a habit. So if we let all countries have nuclear bombs, then all countries could be destroyed, or maybe even annihilated. So this is why i think that not all countries should have nuclear bombs.

  • No no no

    N o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o no n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o n o

  • We should not have nuclear weapons.

    If we have nuclear weapons we can demolish city, states, and countries. If we don't have them how can a nuclear war be started. If a nuclear war can't be started we are saving millions of lives. So, we should not have ANY access to nuclear weapons, but if we do we will be puuting innocent lives at stake.

  • Nuclear weapons should not exist

    I believe that every country in the world should be free of nuclear weapons. We are in the 21st Century, there are other ways to resolve conflicts among nations. What good is history class if we don't learn from past mistakes. The energy from nuclear weapons should be harnessed for interplanetary or interstellar travel. That is where we should be focusing our attention. The inevitable future.

  • Nations should not be able to access and use nuclear weapons

    Nations should not be able to access and use nuclear weapons because if everyone could access and use nuclear weapons, what would happen after we would have another World War? It would be a wasteland full of dead bodies, and the human race may even become extinct, so I say NO to let nations access and use nuclear weapons.

  • Only nations who are responsible enough should have nuclear weapons

    If everyone has nuclear weapons, World War III could easily break out from countries who have a grudge against each other. If 2 minor countries had an atomic war against each other , it would kill everyone within a 100 yard radius and block out the sun and starve everyone. If the US had a stockpile of hydrogen bombs and it exploded it would kill a lot of people.

  • Never in life

    These weapons are very dangerous and are very destructive . They can even dis Troy the world. We don't even know, why such a distructive weapon needed. If we won't get rid of this very dangerous weapon, we would end up killing ourselves. Countries should only use the nuclear weapon as the last resort. No weapons no real war. Nobody knows what will happen to Earth if hundreds of nuclear weapons are exploded over a few days.

  • No..

    I do not believe that all countries have the right to have nuclear weapons. Hostile countries could blow one off and destroy countries just because they can. The United States should have them, however, countries like Iran should not have them because they will use them. No. I don't think all countries should have them.

  • No, all nations do not have a right to nuclear weapons

    No, I believe that all nations do not have a right to nuclear weapons. Although it seems hypocritical to take this stance while living in a country with a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons, I think it is the right stance because of the fact that many of these countries like Iran and North Korea who are actively pursuing a nuclear program have unstable leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. To allow a country like Iran nuclear weapons could be the equivalent to basically starting world war III.

  • With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

    The movie quote is a cliche by now, but in the case of nuclear weapons, it is true. Only countries who know how to use nuclear power responsibly should have access to nuclear weapons. In a perfect world, all nations should ban all forms of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, that may take decades more to achieve. Repressive regimes such as Iran shouldn't have the right to own nuclear weapons because the country's leaders are irresponsible with global politics.

  • No I don't think so.

    I don't think that all nations should have the right to nuclear weapons. A lot of countries aren't as responsible as the United States and I don't trust them with a weapon as powerful as a nuclear weapon. I think some countries wouldn't think of the consequences before using a nuclear weapon before using one.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.