Should every country have the right to possess nuclear weapons?
By not wanting them to have nuclear weapons we are actually encouraging countries to not only pursue them, but to use them as a threat to establish their sovereignty. Of course the world would be safer without nukes, but you have to be realistic about this and it's too much of a hassle to try and stop countries from acquiring them.
To me it's like owning a gun and then saying nobody else can have one. If the US and some of these other countries don't want Iran or North Korea getting nuclear weapons, then they should get rid of their nuclear programs too. It's hypocritical in my mind to have the nukes and then dictate to the rest of the world who can or can not get them. What fits the criteria of getting a nuke? I don't know about North Korea but the reason why a country like Iran is trying to get them is because their enemies the US and Israel have them. I've been stressing to my buddies that Israel is the strongest nation in the Middle East of course no to avail because of the alleged threat by the Iranian president( I can't spell his name) to blow Israel into the sea. I must remind everyone who has the nukes and who doesn't. Iran has to do this to protect themselves. But of course here in the West anyone that tries to defend themselves are the bad guys. In no way shape in form am I an Iran supporter, however if our country is going to sit up there and say that they shouldn't have nukes, shouldn't we get rid of ours. After all Iran has no nuclear weapons as of yet.
I look at it much like I look at the second amendment. Yes, protecting yourself is an inherent right, but the right to possess weapons can be taken away if you show you are unfit, particularly in situations of handling a weapon which can cause immeasurable destruction. If your country's leader(s) commit crimes against humanity and blatantly threatens unnecessary war and destruction against other nations, well, they have given up their right to possess a weapon of such power.
While ideally there should be no nuclear weapons on planet earth since our species has only one planet but if one is holding such a weapon then all have the right to it. Simply it is wrong to assume that some among the homo sapiens sapiens are some how more "rightful" than others. We have to realize that the current world order is tilted towards a minority because they are holding bigger guns and are not letting it go. Eventually almost all will reach to this conclusion. It is only a matter of time. While the answer to this question is yes, it is a wake up call for those who are holding these weapons to give them up voluntarily, transparently and completely in order to avoid the complete annihilation of the only intelligent species we know in this universe. The only thing worse than that possibility is for this intelligent species to vote No and continue supporting that some have more rights than others and can use that right to exploit other members of their species. Such intelligence is better to not exist. So it is yes to this question every time. Logically there cant be a No.
Let me emphasize "because some do". Having nuclear weapons should be banned everywhere, they're unsafe and don't help society, but who are we to decide who's smart or "good" enough to have them? If I was in North Korea, I'd stand my ground. Extreme times call for extreme measures. Their country, however much we may disagree with it, is being repressed and they should not just sit back and do as they're told.
Sure, it would be great if no country had nuclear weapons but disarmament just cripples responsible countries and we can't stop irresponsible countries like North Korea from having them. Just look at the UK, cops don't have guns and so robbers can walk out of a bank they just robbed and shoot any officer in their way. There is no way to stop nations from having nukes, but it would be nice if no one had them.
All the people worldwide have the same rights and are equal to one another.
Every human being has the same cost – it is priceless. Therefore, all the people around the world have the same rights. Why shall the French people be protected from nuclear attacks and the Spanish will not be? That contradicts with the main principles of human equality defended by the United Nations. The first principle of the UN is as follows: All human beings are born with equal and inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms. The third article of the declaration of rights states: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
I believe nuclear weapons are a technological option that is either available to all countries or available to none. I find no basis upon which to ban certain countries from possessing nuclear weapons. Just because a country has ideological or foreign policy positions that are different from those of the US is not a sufficient reason to ban them from having such weapons. Finally, it is all but impossible to keep a country that actually wants and is able to develop nuclear weapons from developing them, so a ban is unenforceable in any case.
Only 9 countries today have nuclear weapons. That is not fair because no countries have the right to dictate to other countries that don't have nuclear weapons. It is not fair for the countries that don't possess nuclear weapons. The rich countries like the United States or Russia can not dictate to the countries that don't have the weapons. It is simply not fair!
I do not like nuclear and hydrogen bombs at all, but let's face it. USA has nukes, Russia has nukes, India has nukes, China has nukes, Brazil has nukes, France and UK have nukes.
And they want to prevent Iran from having nukes? Why on Earth? I don't see why one/a few country/-ies is better than the others, or how some countries could be certain to protect world peace but others are certain to cause nuclear war?!
No. No nuclear weapons for anybody. If they don't want to get rid of them, than nukes for everybody.
As long as some countries have nukes and others don't, the world will be more unstable than it would be if all of the nations had nukes or none of them did. When every country has a nuke, nobody will fuck with anybody else. In a way, it might be our best bet at world peace.
It is not easy saying that, but:
Why should only the rich and the powerfull states on this globe (the US, the Russians, the French, the British and Israel (to name a few)) have the right to have security against a nuclear first strike against them and the option to retaliate to a conventional attack against them (for example when facing imminent defeat!) with a couple of warheads against the attacking country?
I would say every modern and civilized state (i am not really counting Iran and similar states as civilized) has the right to that security blanked, because let's face it, no nuclear state will attack another (the US would have NEVER gone after JAPAN if Japan had nukes, too - they might have fought conventionally and offered terms when Japan faced defeat, but they would have never been able to force surrender at their terms!) and thus ATM nuklear weapons are a real gain for the security of a country.
So, yes - with a few exceptions (countries not "mature" enough to handle those kinds of weapons (most third world countries, because they could not maintain them properly and should feed their people first befor builng the bomb!) and countries that would not handle them well (Iran and similar countries) - all countries should be allowed nuclear arms!
I do believe that every country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons. If some countries have the right and some don't how is that determined? It is not fair for only some countries to be allowed to have them and some are not. Unless there is a great threat if they have one then they should be allowed.
Western powers (and China) seem to think they are superior to other countries and can be trusted with nuclear weapons.
In reality they are no better than the others. America is the only country to have actually used it on people, and they do elect idiots like George Bush Junior as their president.
So, if these countries truly believe in equality, there is no place for this hypocrisy.
If we (The United States) have the right to own and create nuclear weapons why shouldn't anyone else be able to? Also since the creation of nuclear weapons, after using them once or twice and seeing the destruction they cause, every country that has them knows how powerful they are. Nuclear weapons cause people to realize they are safe. Also they cause a sense of peace throughout the world, because everyone knows that a country will not use them unintentionally. Nuclear Weapons make everyone in the world have to work out their problems peacefully because no one wants the destruction of the world.
As seen with the second gulf war, and their other interests in being the only one to have 'the big red button', America has stressed that they will protect everyone. They believe that they are the most responsible large world power, yet time and time again they have attacked a developing nation for seemingly no reason other than that they will blow up the world. Other countries have been more restrained and responsible, never trying to flex their military muscle through barbarous nuclear tests and flaunting their power with large exercises. The only solution is to take away America's large scale nuclear program and pass a measure to force them to scale back their ground-force.
First of all, the US did not use the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to wage war (which were the only times an atom bomb was used on the human race). The US used it in hopes that the Japanese will surrender rather having the US invade Japan, and wasting millions upon millions more of lives, on both sides. I do not like the idea of killing people that can't fight back, but the word would probably be under Japanese-German rule if it wasn't for the US decision of using the atom bomb to end the war.
Now, every country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons because: 1) this enables the countries to advance their energy source, 2) they have a weapon that they could threaten other countries in case they threaten war on the smaller countries, and 3) why should the US be the only one to carry the rights of having a nuclear bomb? its the same as saying, i should be able to carry firearms in a bad, crime infested neighborhood, while my neighbor shouldn't be able to, just because I was the first one to possess arms, and I was the first one to use it. Imagine yourself in that neighborhood's position. You have a wife and kids, now relate that to countries. The country can use that weapon to defend their country, and every citizen in that country.
Why should only America have nuclear weapons. They are ruling the world under the name of democracy with nuclear and toppling all the governments which are against America. So every country should have the nuclear power for good reason. If America feels for democracy they first they should dispose all the nuclear weapons before asking other to stop testing.
Without nuclear weapons, we would all be unprotected and defenseless. Just because we abolish them, doesn't mean other countries won't. They could bomb us. Also, no countries would be afraid to attack us, meaning we would have a lot of war throughout the U.S.A. This is why we should not ban nuclear weapons.
All countries should have the same rights. The rights of a country can be eliminated only if the country has crossed the borders of the right processing of the subject. Also nuclear weapons are the strongest, till now, mechanical defense that a country can posse. That is why each country should have the right to posses nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons have kept world peace today... Nobody will be stupid enough to to send a nuclear weapon if they knew they was going to get 1 back well i know i wouldn't would you... If this answer is no then we should let everyone have nuclear weapons as it keeps the world safer.
The international society cannot prevent the strong countries from owning nclear weapons. That is because the countries possess a lot of power by just having a nuclear weapon itself. They can threat the global peace if the UN or any other nations force the country to give up its nuclear weapons. So if we cannot ban all countries from having nuclear weapons, we might as well let all countries have them so that the countries can check and balance themselves with each other. It is a false assumption that countries will start to abuse nuclear weapons when they are given the rights to possess it. They will only use them when there is a threat to them. Because no one benefits from a nuclear war, including the country who started it.
Its just like the human rights. If a white man can have a house or car why cant a colored guy have them too? I just know it that the united states will back stab everyone on earth the second they are the only ones with nuclear weapons. I just know it...
All in or all out. All nations have the right to defend themselves in a vigorous and competent manner. If any nation is allowed to possess nuclear weapons, the only credible means of any other nation to defend itself from that nuclear threat would be to defend itself with like weapons. Of course, a nuclear-free would be better for all nations - it does make you wonder why those nation with nuclear weapon favor non-proliferation but not total and complete nuclear disarmament.
The US telling other countries they can't have Nuclear Weapons is like a big punch to the face to all other countries.
Oh, well you can't have a weapon because we don't agree with you. The US should be the LAST country to take a stance against Nuclear Weapons. We shouldn't get a say in it. That is, if we want a country to really take the request seriously.
Just look at the Mutually Asserted Destruction strategy. One country launches a nuke, the other does the same. It could stop there, but it won't because nuclear war will have been declared. Each country will keep firing nukes until both countries are wiped of the face of the planet. Now, what country would want to kill itself in order to kill another country? I can't think of one.
Currently, Israel – a rebel nuclear power that refuses to sign up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or to co-operate with the UN and the international community with regard to inspecting her nuclear arsenal - is making bellicose statements with regard to Iran, and an unprovoked military attack by Israel on Iran has been widely mooted. Why? Because Israel do not want Iran to develop nuclear weapons: they know that if Iran and other countries in the region also had nuclear weapons, Israel wouldn’t be able to bully their neighbours and oppress their own Arab civilian population (in flagrant contravention of international law) with impunity - their neighbours would no longer have to cower under the Israeli nuclear threat because they would possess the deterrent of mutually-assured destruction.
If it wasn't for nukes, than most countries would go to war. Nukes kept the U.S. and the Soviet Union from going to war. Yes they cause mass destruction, but if we, or any country that has possession of nukes didn't, then we would have a lot more destruction. Yes some countries deserve possession of nukes, but some don't. Think about it, do you want the Iraqi government having them.
It is not fair that bigger nations police the world by flexing their nuclear deterrents. The U.S. has no right to prevent other nations from acquiring nuclear arms, as such nations may experience provocation and therefore may need deterrence also. If one argues that any nation has the right to nuclear arms, then they must extend this right to all nations. Either all nations should be allowed nuclear arms or no nations.
Every nation has a right to defend itself from aggressor states. The US has not always acted for the benefit of the world. Just as everyone individual in America has a right to bear arms, every nation has a right to protect its people. The US wants to prevent other nations from gaining nuclear weapons because war would be more dangerous with them. The future of war will be more costly in both immediate death and sustained exposure to radiation. Countries that have nuclear capabilities will not seek out war as readily because they would face certain death.
First of all in my belief there should be no nuclear weapons at all in this world, the amount of mass destruction and devastation it causes people is not worth it, even if it is to end a war or to protect people within a nation. However since many countries have decided to make them, for example USA, then they have no rights to tell another country that they cant make them. It is stupid that one country should want to possess so much nuclear weapons and yet tell others to not create them. That only instills fear through out the world of that nation and makes others uneasy, which is something a country a and its people should not be living in. So in general, I hate nuclear weapons and hope no one would make them, but sine some have already choose to make them, then other countries should have the right to make them as well so they dont have to live in fear, and I'm sure if many countries had nuclear weapons then no one would dare launch them since the other countries would have some to combat them with. If Japan had nuclear weapons at the time it could have prevented the US from bombing them so ruthlessly since they would have been in fear that japan might bomb them back, which they had every right to do so.
We stated the ball rolling but want to be the only player in the game. That is unless they are our "friends".
There is no doubt other countries around the globe are suspicious of "USA's motive's" considering our arsenal. So that being said, if you were in their shoes wouldn't you want "in" to?
Who the heck is the USA to play God, and decide "who should" and "who should not" have nuclear weapons??? Either everyone has them, (which is immposible to enforce), or no one has them.
I feel that nuclear weapons are to powerful for any country to have. Nuclear weapons can wipe out nations. I don't see why anyone would wipe out an entire nation. If a world war would ever happen again those with nuclear weapons would be the only ones standing. Nuclear weapons don't bring about nothing but fear into people of a nation.
It's a very simple logic question. If only certain countries have it, it is an obviously hypocritical thing for those countries to stop other countries from having it. If you detest possession of nuclear weapon, you shouldn't possess it in the first place, and possessing them automaically and atomically strips you from any right to lecture any country. There's really, really nothing much to debate about.
Any country should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, if that is their wish. It could be dangerous for the world, but it is unfair to say that some countries can have them, while some can't. Any country should be wary of the world superpowers having control of so many nuclear weapons, and it is reasonable for them to wish to have some of their own to defend themselves.
This Is A List Of The Countries That Have Nuclear Weapons: United States, Soviet Union/Russian Federation, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, And South Africa.
I Think It Should Be A Limit To How Many Nuclear Weapons They Have At Once. Each Country Should Make A Kind Of Agreement Of The Minimum And Maximum Of The Number Of Nuclear Weapons In Each Country. I Don’t Think That They Should Take Away All The Nuclear Weapons Completely Because Some Countries We Can’t Really Trust All The Way.
In Conclusion, I Think That The Countries Should Have Some Kind Of Agreement About How Many Nuclear Weapons Each Country Should Have.
Every country has the right to process their own nuclear energy, but they shouldn't do that anyway because it could kill thousands of innocent people. I believe that if you have nuclear weaponry it could be hard in some cases to protect those weapons and weapons like that could be disastrous.
The most common argument against allowing other countries to possess nuclear weapons is that "the country in question might use them, which would be bad, so they shouldn't be allowed to have them." Yet the United States of America, the world's foremost nuclear power, is the only country that ever actually has used nuclear weapons - to murder civilians, no less. Furthermore, there is little point to possessing a nuclear weapon without the willingness to use said weapon under appropriate circumstances. The argument that "we have them, but it's okay for us to have them because we would never use them" is illogical - if we would never use them, why not adhere to a policy of universal nuclear disarmament and decree that no state, including our own, ought to possess them? The current practice of maintaining our own nuclear arsenal but forbidding other states to develop their own is simply a projection of imperialism upon nations that we dislike. I'm not saying here that Iran should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons - they certainly shouldn't - I'm saying that the arguments right-wing folk use to excuse our arsenal while forbidding production of theirs are hypocritical, self-contradictory, and illogical, and that the morally high argument would be one that aims to do away with nukes altogether.
Well, if US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel can have it, then the rest of the world can also!!! Equality prevails over all and that should happen here as well. Its a guarantee of safety and security for a country and monopolized hold of Nuclear weapons is a threat to global peace!
1)Every country has a right to self defense.
2)Nuclear weapons are 1940s technology an you can't keep the genie in the bottle.
3)If the other guy has nukes and you think he'll use them, then you are not about to attack him.
4)Nukes kept the US and the Soviet Union from fighting each other.
5)If China's neighbors had nukes than China would not be trying to bully them.
Unfortunately, the world will never be rid of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. Although these weapons have the ability to destroy on a massive scale, they also protect the U.S. and other nations of this outcome. Perhaps the best approach is to keep the responsibility on the world's powers (Russia, United States, United Kingdom), who should make sure other countries never get the chance to use them.
No one should have the right to tell another country what they can have or not have. The United States is the only country to have used them on another country. They're the ones that shouldn't have them at all. They are not protecting anything with those kind of weapons, and these people are very stupid to think it does, and they don't need any say in the world.
All the people worldwide have the same rights and are equal to one another.
Every human being has the same cost – it is priceless. Therefore, all the people around the world have the same rights. Why shall the French people be protected from nuclear attacks and the Spanish will not be? That contradicts with the main principles of human equality defended by the United Nations. The first principle of the UN is as follows: All human beings are born with equal and inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms. The third article of the declaration of rights states: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
One of the key tenets of the nuclear arms race during the Cold War was something called "mutually assured destruction"--the idea that if one country launches a nuke, the other will use its second-strike capability to retaliate, devastating both countries. This is a lose-lose situation and thus the nuclear powers were kept at bay. Some say that rogue states will use nuclear weapons like suicide bombs, but the comparison is misguided. Suicide bombers have no power base to lose. Iran, for instance, would lose its power base if it was destroyed by a nuke, which goes against their long-term agenda. The thing we really need to fear is if non-state actors get their hands on nukes. Then the suicide bomber comparison really is valid.
Why should only Western powers have the right to develop, own and threaten other countries with such weapons? This should be a right to all countries as this is fair, and besides the world is not owned and governed by these "superpowers." I agree that these weapons should never be used however if some countries have them then it puts them in the driving seat so to speak and this is what these select countries want.
I do not think that every country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons. I think that nuclear weapons should not be allowed for any nation unless authorized by the UN to have them and that we should stop the development of new weapons. Reaching a "stalemate" because nuclear weapons are owned my many countries does nothing to help drive peace globally.
There are some cultural habits that have passed away. No one has the right to duel in the street, kings no longer have the power of life and death over peasants, and slavery is supposed to be illegal. As we grow as a society we can give up unneeded acts of violence and if nukes don't count, what would count?
What a silly debate with silly opinions. The only countries that can ban nuclear weapons and enforce the ban are the USA, Russia, and China. Thankfully, we have the United Nations to impose sanctions. If push comes to shove, it will be the USA that enforces the rules. Russia and China actually want most of the countries that are against the USA to have nukes because those countries will try to kill Americans and Jews.
Allowing everyone to have nukes is insane and can only hasten them being used, especially by radical Islam countries in the Middle East. Jihad is about destroying all non-Muslims, and if these folks get nukes they will definitively use them. Iran needs to be taken out now! Korea needs to be taken out on the same day!
“The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.”
For some idiot to say, it is like owning a gun. If I can own a gun, you should be allowed to own a gun. The ignorance of many folks at this site does not cease to amaze me. All wars and weapons should never have happened! Amazing! Man is an aggressive animal; our first weapons were stones and clubs. Whoever had the biggest rocks and clubs won until the bow and arrow or sword were invented; then came gun powder and guns. Now we are at nuke stage.
Despite the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons treaty (NPT), which was not signed by India, Israel and Pakistan, and the efforts of the United Nations, nukes will be used again. I just hope the USA has the most advance technology.
Data on the number of nuclear weapons is notoriously difficult to find. Almost 2,000 of the roughly 4,400 deployable warheads are in a state of high operation alert (2,150 USA, 1,800 Russia, 290 France, and 160 UK). Other nuclear warheads, 2012 – Russia has 8,200; USA has 5,850; China 200; Pakistan 100; India 90; Israel 80; UK 65; and France 10. Russia has approximately 7,350 warheads in reserve or awaiting dismantlement. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/13/north-korea-nuclear-weapons
The nukes will be used again. I hope America and its allies survive. Nobody knows what will happen to the earth if hundreds or thousands of nukes are exploded over a few days. I am not optimistic that human life on earth will survive. America needs to continue spending hundreds of billions on weapon advancement and defense annually; but, we should pull most of our troops out of the Middle East; but, we should maintain all are air and Naval bases.
ALL war and weapons should have never happened!!! Can't everyone in this world just pull their own weight! It wastes billions of pounds which could be spent on helping poorer countries or improving your own. It is a human right to live... so what an earth makes you think this is ok!!! Without all this useless rubbish they could pay for major human projects like the Berin Starit!!
Think about people whom are anxious for Infidels to meet their maker. Problem is, it is only the belief of certain fanatics that is taught at a young age who is right and who needs to go. Some people are all to much in a hurry to meet their God.
am in no hurry, so please don't say that everyone should have a nuke.
Countries under the control of the Muslim brotherhood should not because they have already used what little they have to send their children strapped with bombs to attack Europe and the USA. If they had nuclear arms the world could very well end because unlike the Russians the Muslims don't "love their children too". Islam is not a race by the way it is an ideology like Communism is an ideology and Nazism is an ideology. Islam is political right wing extremism.
Owing to the current global conditions, whereby any time a third world war could spark, keeping nuclear weapons could be the cause of wide-scale devastation. And love is what you need not weapons. So it is mandatory that such weapons-of-mass-destruction should be kept away from most countries.
There shouldn't be any nuclear weapons because all it does is create problems and drama. For instance if North Korea wasn't doing what they are right now there wouldn't be any drama. Also, another reason why any country should have nuclear weapons is because then if a country gets upset with another one, they will just start nuking each other. The last reason why I think this is also because it could potentially cause a World War 3 and we all know what happens after a world war.
What have nuclear bombs caused in the past? The Cuban Missile crisis, Hiroshima, Nagasaki are all examples of this and it hasn't benefited anyone. There is a reason the law was enforced in the first place, to keep hundreds of people from harm and removing the law would put not only hundreds but millions of lives at risk. Would we really want to do that to innocent men, women or children?
With a range of human emotions and impulses, the urge to blow the only habitable planet in the known universe sky high is just too great. Even testing one goes beyond the realm of the irresponsible, thats land that we can never use again. With only one earth, how can we be so stupid?!?
Why should countries have nuclear weapon? One kilogram of Plutonium can change the World`s order. Nuclear weapon. It can destroy this land, water, air.... Does human has authority to destroy this Earth? I don`t think so. What is moral`s end? What is human for that enormous space? What is us? When we make nuclear weapon, before we have to think about this question too.
Every country should not have the right to possess nuclear weapons because some nations are too unstable. Since the collapse of the USSR, lots of their old weaponry and military equipment have gone missing and/or ended up on the black market. Some countries would use weapons in small, petty disputes to settle centuries' old grudges against neighbors.
Every country has the right to advance itself in technological means and should continue to do so. Similarly, countries should have enough tactical weapons to deflect any strategic or a militia attack to defend its sovereignty and protect its people. A weapon of mass murder belonging to any community or any country is not only a threat to all human civilization but to world peace and our future generations, the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still not forgotten. That was a loss far too great. Whenever I imagine the picture of what actually would had happen there, it kills me to think that, how could anyone do something so barbaric like that. Think of the children that had nothing to do with the war. It's the murder of innocence and humanity itself, no country should bear such weapons and I am deeply amazed that leading world powers do not decommission their own nuclear weapons but ask other countries to do so, for the world to be safer we certainly do need nuclear or biological weapons.
Nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous and can lead to the end of humanity. The only life that creates miracles and have the advantage over every other living thing does not suddenly get to destruction of everything. By owning nuclear weapons countries are creating issues for other countries that do not own such weapons and in a world full of competition such countries do not want to be left behind in anything and will look for illegal means to gain nuclear weapons. Thus it should not be legal for any country to own weapons and this is a time for peaceful coexistence rather than war so they should abolish the existing nuclear weapons
It is better to abandon the clear weapons if possible. It is the most dangerous weapon that mankind has ever built. It not only kills the people of the particular country but also others who inhabit the area. Excessive explosions cause nuclear winter due to the smoke cloud that spread in the air and spread radiation. Not only a country attacks other but others also counterattack it. i.e. If USA strikes Russia then Russia also counterattacks USA. It is pretty sure that the countries who possess nuclear weapons do not attack to the others with nuclear weapons but they are affected anyway by radiation. If we coinue to use nuclear weapons then we are responsible for our own species extinction. Spread love not war.
The right of nuclear proliferation is not one that should be extended to a great number of the world's nations, particularly those run by psychotic dictators, and those in practice of human rights violations and genocide. Nuclear power is the most powerful technology known to man, as well as that with the greatest capability for destruction, and certainly only those nations that support and defend freedom, liberty, and peace should be in control of it.
For Example, there is evidence that a small number of countries are supporting terrorist groups. If they get Nuclear weaponry it may be a disaster for us all. Also there are multiple nukes already pointed at america from other developed countries who have a mind. but if a countrie who is run by one man decides to nuke us it would all be over.
Every country wants to be at the very top. But not in a very good way, if they don't get what they want, they'll use force to make it there. Preferably with nukes, if they have them. That's why only trusted countries should have nuclear weapons. If every country had nuclear weapons, it could spell the end of planet earth and life on it as we know it!
Theses dangerous weapons would only serve to spark conflict and argument. Besides, nuclear weapons can potentially destroy the planet. No country should have that kind of power. Additionally, when one country had nuclear weapons and another does not, it is viewed as "unfair" ,and in a way it is unfair due to the fact that no country should really have these weapons in their possession.
The wealthy will always try to prevent others from getting wealthy, those with power will always try to suppress others from obtaining power, that is just how the world works. Those who argue it's only "fair" to let every country have that right because a few countries already does is simply not being realistic. If you are US citizen, you will only want US to have nuclear weapons, but if you are Iranian or North Koearn, you would also want your country to have that power to defend yourself against other nations. But just because it's the un-hypocritical or the fair thing to do doesn't mean we should do it. There are no correct morals or ethics when it comes to politics, just individual agendas.
We like to think we are a great democratic and capitalistic nation and we have the rights to police the world so earth is a better place, but in reality, to many nations around the world, US is a bully who only take actions to further their own agendas and gains. The US, Russia, or China will never get rid of their own nuclear weapons, so anytime they sanction other nations, it seems highly hypcritical. But to allow every nation to have nuclear weapons is just stupid. Bigger and more developed nations have more hurdles to go through when trying to use nuclear arms and therefore takes more consideration and time to process the decision. Smaller nations or nations with dictators or religious fanatics have no such hurdles, they are more likely to use nuclear arms rather than just using it as a threat or self-defense, and if they decide to use it, it is much easier and faster for them to do so because there are no opposing political opponents, no democratic processes, and no government bodies like congress and parliament to go through. So you actually increase the chance of a nuclear war happening rather than decreasing it. But these debates are pointless, politic is highly biased, every country will obtain nuclear arms if they have the power and means to do so. There's no right or wrong when it comes to political decisions, only self interests.
These items have the power to destroy the world, and why should one country have them and not another, so i think no one should have them, america has already used them against japan and who is to say they will not use them again....just depends who gives the ok. it is like giving every one a gun and saying protect your self(like the bill of rights to bear arms), but that has not worked out to well because some crazy person will use them.....e.g shootings everywhere in the usa...and the usa is the only country to a nuke on another country...hmmm so what does that tell you!!
The Cuban Missile Crisis nearly caused a nuclear weapon exchange and possibly the death of millions. There are now more nations with nuclear weapons, including Pakistan, India, France and possibly Israel. There are also more rogue states that may use such weapons, including Iran to eliminate "the Zionist threat" they see in Israel for merely existing and Al Qaeda against the infidels. If every nation had a right to nuclear weapons, all the minor conflicts in the world could erupt into nuclear war. We should seek to disarm all nuclear weapons, not give a universal right to possess them.
Any nuclear weapons are very dangerous and their renewal will cost the tax payer 97 thousand million pounds, yet it leaves us totally useless in opposing any real existing threat. A nuclear war would cause a blanket of particles in the atmosphere that would blot out the sun’s rays and result in the death of the vegetation on which life depends. This would be in addition to the death of people, animals, and plants caused by the explosive power, the radiation and the shock waves.
Many states have different people, smart people or unintelligent people. People in charge may be elected from a unintelligent group causing the smartest idiot to be in charge of what ever that position gives them access too. Bush put us in trillions of dollars of debt and thats a president, theres no way of knowing what could happen if a states governor would abuse this. Just look back at the civil rights movement in the south, they used there national guard to keep blacks out of white schools. Even today states as a whole don't want gays to be able to the same rights as another straight citizen.
I believe that nuclear weapons should never be made, and whoever tries to make them should be punished. Nuclear weapons have too much destruction power, they could wipe out an entire country of innocent civilians, women and children, possibly an entire race depending on where it was set off. Not to mention wildlife, animals and trees.
Most of USA's enemies are bad and want to terrorize innocent citizens like North Korea who threatens the US and even South Korea. Iraq and Afghanistan threatened us with there bombs I a apologize for everybody from North Korea or Afghanistan but it is the horrible truth. I also think hat it is okay for the US allies to have nukes.
I agree with previous posts. As a leader in the world, we should be the first to get rid of our nukes, however, if we do that before all other countries, we will be putting ourselves into a position of vulnerability. I doubt it will ever happen...the threat of nukes from the countries that have them is enough to keep people from using them at the present time. That is not to say that the probability of these bombs flying in the near future is low.
If there were nukes in countries like Iran for example we would be dead. Weapons of this sort should only be allowed by our closest allies. This does not include Russia. I do not feel countries like Russia and china should have access to this technology even if preventing it ment war. It is unsafe to have your enimies to have as good or better technology than you.
In an idealistic utopia, no need would exist for the possession or use of nuclear arms. Unfortunately, that utopia does not exist on this planet. With respect to the greatest firepower mankind has ever known, only those nations of the world who act in a responsible manner should have the privilege of possessing these weapons. Nations who seek these weapons for status, to threaten neighbors, or who desire the unfettered use of this destructive power must always be deterred from possessing these weapons, by force if necessary under extreme circumstances. In general, all nations should be discouraged from nuclear proliferation through treaties, incentives, and assurances of support should unthinkable circumstances arise. Those nations who do possess this weapon should only retain weapons sufficient for defense and deterrence purposes while continuing to find ways to promote non-proliferation.
Many country's like Britain Russia and America have the power to destroy the entire world. And not only once. They can destroy the world again with nuclear bombs around 32 times all of them put together. Because of nuclear bombs have made other country's powerful! But the bad idea from this is that the culear bombs are at risk to destroy our entire world. Remember on the news once some teenagers hacked into the systems of pentagon, they autally had the ability to let one of the nuclear bombs hit somewhere.so again our defense systems could open letting all of the bombs detonate if we do not act. What about the cold war the massive bomb that was released for testing by Russia and the bomb was over powered that I could had destroy a lot of their resource. Now all I say if the entire world had bombs nuclear wars may happen causing domination to the entire world. Its to risky if the entire world has bombs!
If every single country in the world possess nuclear weapons, their will be tension created between neighboring countries, their will be lack of foreign relationships as they will feel insecure which will lead to countries building up alliances , this can trigger war between neighboring countries as they fear that if they don't take action now, in the future lives will be taking for their mistakes.
Additionally, country would feel that possessing nuclear weapons would make them have more power, so poorer countries would focus more on the concept of owning nuclear weapons than stabilizing their country and this can lead to extraordinary debts ; obviously they wont be able to pay the money back and this could affect our global economy so badly that countries will lose partnership in trade worldwide.
If we have nuclear weapons we can kiss the earth bye-bye. We have come so far in all the years of living on this planet. Countries need to work out their problems with each other without weapons. Look what happened in the cold war, we almost died, almost blown up the world. All this work reminds me of Revelations in the bible: there will be no peace until Jesus comes back. There will be no world peace but there can be some
Nuclear weapons been used as a deterrent for several decades; however we are now seeing countries which are willing to use such weapons. Just look at North Korea, dramatically increasing their nuclear capabilities and threatening war with South Korea and a "preemptive strike" on the USA. How could anyone suggest that a country like this deserves the right to possess any weapons of mass destruction?
There is no way countries should have the right to possess nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons makes the world a very unsafe place environment because if a country decides to stand up and shoot a nuke at another country, that country will respond with nuclear weapons which will cause a nuclear way. Also, if countries like US nuke somewhere like Iceland where they don't have nuclear weapons, that gives United States an unfair advantage.
Nuclear weapons are just too destructive! Albert Einstein once famously said "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." He thought that world war three would be a nuclear war that would destroy civilization as we know it. World war four would therefore be fought with nothing but sticks and stones because there would be nothing left. It's famous because it's a warning of the immense destructive power of nuclear weapons. The United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea all possess nuclear weapons. In fact Russia and the United States both have thousands of warheads. They have to power to destroy countries and even the world. Nukes are weapons that have lasting affects 100's of years later. War should be a last resort. And nuclear weapons are too dangerous for one government to have power over.
The problem is based on the fact that they are way too destructive. Just look at what one of them did to Japan. Hiroshima was the site of the first ever atomic bombing during World War II. The bomb exploded over Hiroshima at 8:16 on the morning of August 6, 1945. Most of the city was destroyed. Over 100,000 people were killed, many instantly and many afterward because of radiation sickness. More people died later because of cancer or other illnesses caused by the radiation. Approximately 21,343 people died of cancer from the radiation caused by the atomic bomb. Even if all countries did agree not to use them, what would happen the next time there was a war? If the leader of one country is unstable and desperate, they might use them anyway.
They are weapons that have lasting affects 100s of years later. War should be a last resort. And nuclear weapons are too powerful for one biased government to have power over. People with that kind of power often lose their heads (e.g. rational thought).
Is it reasonable to have the kind of power to change/destroy the world in biased hands when they could use it for their own petty little arguments amongst themselves (e.g. Russia and the US)?
I think we should all take a moment to go back to Kindergarten and remember the most important lesson we were all taught. "The Golden Rule." The U.S Should treat other countries the same way we wish to be treated. This includes throwing in the idea of Nuclear Weapons. If we own them, which we do, and lets face it the U.S may not threaten other countries with the use of our weapons but just having them in our reach is enough of a threat to anyone without the use of words or a document, how come we do not expect other countries to be allowed to have them as well? If we're threatening a country, we deserve to be threatened in return for we as a country have not treated them fairly.
Other countries hate Americans because America is the superpower. America already gives every other country everything they need, why should America allow others the opportunity to rise with nuclear weapons? Now, America needs to get rid of Obama to actually move "forward." If Obama had it his way he would get rid of all of the nuclear weapons and let every other country rise against America. What an idiot. Why would you want all that power as a president just to crap on the idiots that voted for you?
1) Wasting the money on weapons research. (STAT- Nuclear countries spend about $37 Million every second on developing nuclear programs. That’s about £23,972,300.) When we could use all that money now to help out our decreasing economy.
2) (STAT- There is enough nuclear weapons to demolish the earth 7 times over.) Why use a weapon if it destroys part of the earth we now live on. Plus the nuclear fall out would devastate other countries not affected by the current conflict. (If there was ever a conflict)
3) Resources needed to make 1 nuclear weapon. Mining for Uranium, using up precious oil and natural gas to make weapons no really uses but for practice runs. Plus the resources needed to make 1 bomb is so radioactive, that if anyone person who tried to make one, would be endangering their own life. And if there was nothing to go wrong in the process the endangering of many other lives as well.
4) Considering that what I've gathered from numerous websites, most people around the world are in fact against the use of nuclear weapons. So why have them at all when it causes so many problems just to make one and then to have one in your possession
who has the moral superiority to simply launch a missile that would end the world?! surely common sense says that no one has the right to end the world simply because they see it fit? the fact some countries then determine others arn't allowed to have them is just sickening
Ladies and gentlemen, consider this. North Korea is threatening us with nuclear weapons. Do you think this is a right thing to do? No, it is not. If every country have rights to own nuclear weapons, they will threaten each other which will cause a huge problem and everybody might die. Is this a good thing to do? No, it is not.
Nuclear weapons are a death sentence for the entire world in that, if one is deployed it will ruin the earth and every living thing on it. There is no way to prevent strong winds from blowing fall out to the far corners of the earth. Although the same reasoning could be used in favor of these weapons (based on the argument that nobody would actually deploy one for that very reason)the fact remains that there is no way to protect the human race from an act of insanity. Therefore, no nuclear weapons should be made or distributed to any country.
For several reason; firstly, it should be the responsibility and privilege of select countries to be in possession of said nuclear warheads. The duty of these countries regarding aforementioned is to use them as a method of intimidation against other countries or rogue groups, to prevent them from getting out of hand in their endeavors, as deemed by the UN. Rogue states such as the DPRK, Iran, and Pakistan, should absolutely not be allowed these missiles. As demonstrated in the past,the governments of these 'rogue' nations have high potential to react to situations in an irrational and selfish manner, and by placing in their hands the greatest power known to man, we are only encouraging their more nefarious endeavors.
World War 3 is going to be the end of humanity due to nuclear disaster. Not only that but a single warhead could be more than merely disastrous. Seizing all nuclear weapons would save us, considering we are not at the top of the list for number of nuclear warheads.
I'm not sure if i put this the right way, but I don't think any country should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Sure, some of them know how to handle it, but I believe that some countries are not mature enough to have nuclear weapons. It's a great risk and why would anyone need them? They haven't been used since WW2 and I doubt they will ever be used again.
Nuclear bombs give politicians the ability to kill millions in seconds. Not only the destructive potential of the explosion but the effects of radioactive fallout on the planet. Nuclear weaopons are for cowards who are afraid to fight for their own but ironically the fools who conceived this failed to think of the possibility that someone else could invent them, when they did and theses arrogant fools realized they could be killed allong with much of the world population now all of a sudden they want fake world peace. No true warrior likes nuclear weapons only idiots who like the idea of winning a war without sacrifice do. Nuclear weaopons are for cowards.
Every country should not have the right to possess nuclear weapons. Some people who possess these have obviously threatened us and other nations with these weapons. We must protect ourselves and others so we will not have a nuclear war. If we don't get a hold on the world and it's weapons we could all be in serious danger.
Nukes should most definitely not be allowed for anyone. The ability to ruin a generation because of arguments the past generation was involved in is a crime against humanity. For example the bombing on Japan lead to decades of deteriorating generations. Not only did the bomb leave future generations permanent health issues, but never will anyone forget the damage and the hatred that possessed America to commit such an act.
Countries that are not used to having nuclear weapons, and then being allowed to produce nuclear weapons will be a huge disaster. First of all, allowing them to have a weapon of that magnitude is reckless. These countries will want to bust out the nuke for any reason and cause harm to society. Heavier sanctions need to be implied to these countries attempting reaching nuclear weapons. United States, Russia, and China should be the only ones allowed. End of discussion.
Honestly no one in the world needs nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons not only kill your enemy but also anyone who just happens to be in the area. To much life is lost when weapons such as these are set off. Its one thing to defend your country and those inhabiting it, its another thing to kill millions of innocent people.
Every country should not have the right to possess nuclear weapons. There are some countries that would use these weapons to cause harm to everyone on the planet. They would act irrationally and irresponsible, with the given opportunity. Only countries that have proved themselves worthy should have the right to possess these kinds of weapons.
It may not be the best to keep other countries from having nuclear weapons but by keeping a few countries in control, then the smaller “lesser” countries cannot unwisely use their weapon/s and destroy the world. If a country that does not have the responsibility to control and use a nuclear weapon wisely (if at all) then they should not be given the chance to "use" it and possibly destroy the world. An arms race and nuclear war could break out and cause mass destruction. It may not be fair for only a select few countries to have nuclear weapons but in the case of what the world could become if nuclear weapons fell into the wrong hands, a few owners is better then nothing left.
The likelihood is that one of these weapons will end up in the hands of someone stupid or evil enough to utilise it. America has already proved itself that stupid/evil with its needless attack on Japan. I don't think they have the right to dictate who possesses these weapons. Then, extremist countries have proved themselves insane enough to blow themselves up in other situations. Chances are, some ass will end up in charge of one of these arsenals and kill what remains of our planet. What worries me is that we, the rest of the inhabitants, have no say in this! Humans are dangerous, conceited and power hungry. It will end up in an apocalypse.
Nuclear weapons are far too dangerous for any country to have them. A nuclear weapon used as a threat means an increase in world tension, and many countries will simply respond by creating their own nuclear weapons. When everyone has these weapons pointed at one another, diplomacy breaks down into fear of mutually assured destruction.
We would end up killing ourselves. Why? I want to know why. Why should countries have them?Countries should only use the nuclear weapon as the last resort. No weapons, no real war. We need to get rid of them now before it's too late. We need to stop the government.
Haven't you noticed from the countless attacks from North Korea, the country isn't only developing nuclear weapons, they are testing it and declaring war on America because they are not capable of dealing with the weapons in s suitable/decent manner. Therefore - no, absolutely not, until countries all countries are developed.
It's enough not everyone should have them. Is too dangerous to mankind. And falling in wrong hands is always possible. I fear some countries will use them for wrong purposes like Pakistan, Iran (may use or may not), North Korea (for sure will use). So it's not good. We want to live. We don't want to be wiped out by idiots who play politics and fanatics who play terrorism.
If every country had nuclear weapons, then some of the less responsible countries may see it as a chance to take over somewhere, but this would then just start a nuclear war. A nuclear war would quickly spread radiation and many, many people would die. It would be even better if none had any at all. This would prevent nuclear wars and other such things.
Most often people underestimate the power that some people hold. Hitler who some consider the anti-Christ was elected democratically elected started a quest for power that killed millions. If you give him a weapon that can destroy entire cities with the A-bomb the entire world would be uninhabitable and all of the human race would've been finished
Their is no need for nuclear weapons. The people that die are just ordinary people, who have nothing to do with the reason to use them. What good does it do, anyway, if you use them to take over a nation, when it will be completely destroyed? Many years will have to pass before you can even send people into the country to assess damages. No one will ever be able to live there or farm there, or anything, for that matter.
I believe in leading by example. Monkey see, monkey do. Those countries that do possess nuclear weapons shake the finger at N.K. and Iran for trying to do the same to protect their citizens. We, (the U.S.) as a world power should be pointing the finger at ourselves.
Under international law, nuclear weapons should be classified as a crime against humanity because they do not discriminate between civilians and soldiers, between hospitals and air force bases, between schools and military centers. Any major nuclear war would also likely end civilization as we know it. No country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons.
No country should be allowed to have nuclear weapons because it will increase the number of genocides. The number of nuclear weapons today, make it possible to destroy the whole planet 20 times.If a nuclear bomb is exploded in an area, the area would have radiation and it wouldn't be safe to live there until 70 years pass.
I am a simple man but I do not see the need for any country to own nuclear or biological weapons. There is enough and so many kinds of weapons out there to kill off every living thing on the planet ten times over.
I believe that all of the countries should enlist one common kind of world overseer to make sure that we all truly dispose of these horrific weapons. And we should all work towards a common goal of cleaning up the planet and make it a safe place for our children to inherit.
This is a new age and now days the other side of the world is only a keystroke away.
I am not a religious man but I really feel that If there is a God, then he or she or it will do for us humans what we cant do for ourselves.
Nations like Iran and North Korea are anti-America, so just supporting them would basically mean helping them destroy our country. Like I said, it really is a terrible idea. I wouldn't like the idea of our enemies having nuclear weapons. And you can say that they need protect themselves, too, but keeping them away from the weapons is protecting our country.
I don't think any country should have those type of weapons. It is unfair, dangerous and hypocritical. To only give it to a few when we are all supposed to be equal in the world. The USA in particular needs to show more humility because they are the only nation that has ever USED nuclear weapons. I know the U.S. Government always wants to look like the good guy and the world "hero", but I don't buy it.
well the porblem is that countries cannot control themselves
Countries should not be allowed to have their own nuclear war heads because they can intimidate and bomb other countries if they feel like it. If they all didnt have nukes then they would have to try and get along and solve problems without killing an entire country. People would be a lot safer if countries didnt have nuclear war heads. There would also be no chance of a nuclear war and killing millions of people.
When a single generation can destroy the earth 7 times over you know whatever it is that is capable of this should be banned. That thing is nuclear weaponry, there have been several cases where this scenario could have possibly played out. Whether by threat or by mistake this is a very real situation.
No, every country should not have the right to possess nuclear weapons, including all of those who have them now. Nuclear weapons are excessive force, which not only impacts PEOPLE, but the environment, as well. All countries should be discouraged from having and/or using nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction, which the United States has used as an excuse to wage war in foreign policy. This is hypocrisy.
They are way too destructive. Just look at what one of them did to Japan. Even if all countries agreed not to use them, what would happen the next time there was a war? If the leader of one country is unstable, they might use them anyway. After that, depending on the way other countries react, chaos could ensue. Besides, why go to war when you can have diplomacy?
Nuclear weapons really shouldn't exist at all, but the fact is that they do. However, some countries have leaders whose behavior is far too erratic and unpredictable to have possession of such weapons of mass destruction. These leaders have to be watched constantly; the whole world has to be on guard for any sign of them attempting to gain possessions of, or construct nuclear weapons. There is no room for error when it comes to handling these situations.
If we nuke them then they will have many losses, but if they nuke us then we will have double the losses as other countries are more hostile than the US. Iran and other countries are already considered terrorists and are just crazy in my opinion, so why would we give them nuclear weapons?
It is not about equality here. How can a democracy be equal to theocracy or autocracy? Can hitler and mahatama gandhi be taken as same on this issue? Weakness of not having is better than arrogance of having it. One can have a check on oneself and would not do anything that could bring nasty outcomes.
I will just give one example of what could happen if every single were able to have access to nuclear weapons. Look at North Korea. It's a pariah. And, frankly, North Korea is under the control of a mentally unstable man, or so documentaries say. If that kind of a ruler were to have access to nuclear arms, so many people would be put in danger, including North Korea itself.
Nuclear weapons has greater impact on the life universally. They affect all kinds of life forms and have long-term consequences. Hence, I oppose any country possessing nuclear weapons.
Every country should not have the right to possess nuclear weapons because it just leads to increased tensions amongst countries and possibly war. There are countries, such as North Korea, that could be viewed as ticking time bombs that have been outspoken on its need to prove themselves to the global community with weapons. That is just one example of why it doesn't make sense to have nuclear weapons. The problem is, who is to say who should possess them and who shouldn't? That is a whole other issue. The other issue is who would enforce such rules.