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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
If all the nations in the world are to develop some form Nuclear Weapons they would ve well able to deter the larger oppressive powers on their on. Besides, everyone should have the right to do as they collectively wish they ARE humans too afterall, aren't they? And if this destroys us then I say let the nature take its course.
How on earth can you say you want nukes for everyone. Syria has said they want to launch a chemical attack on Israel. Imagine if they got hands on nuke! Would you rather let your responsible older brother borrow your car or your little brother who has wrecked 6 cars?! As unfair as it looks only letting the "responsible countries" have nukes is the right thing to do, after no nukes at all.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
China is becoming very agressive in claiming the spratlys group of islands as its indisputable territory despite the fact that international law is on the side of the Philippines, which is also claiming the disputed territory (and significantly nearer to the islands). If China resorts to force and things escalate to an all-out invasion, the Philippines should have the nuclear option as a last and ultimate resort in the face of overwhelming forces.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Countries like the USA are always complaining that nations like Iran and North Korea are acquiring nuclear weapons. Well excuse me! But who started the trend? The USA did of course when they mercilessly killed millions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Iran is surrounded with nuclear hostility with nations like Israel and Saudi Arabia (who have thought to be gaining nuclear capability). I think it's ridiculous that one country should have nuclear deterrent and then another should be deprived of that right. As crazy as it sounds, if every nation has nukes then the world is a lot more safer than we'd think, because nobody would want to use their weapons knowing that it would have the potential to cause a domino effect and destroy the planet. It's unhealthy and dangerous for only some countries to have nukes. Either everyone has them, or nobody has them at all.
It isn't even our responsibility to regulate nuclear weapons. It makes no sense that we can condemn Iran, North Korea, Libya, and Pakistan for trying to get the nuclear bomb when we ourselves have it. What the UN is doing is picking which countries can have it and which can't. When we as America a country that has the bomb say other countries can't have the bomb were acting like a god or something.
The hypocrisy of the existing "western" nuclear states is utterly breathtaking. The unspoken truth is that their basic viewpoint is this ; " We can possess nuclear weapons because We can be trusted. But We have the right to prevent any other country from possessing them, because they obviously cannot be trusted. "
In reality, the nuclear states don't want any proliferation because this would level the playing field somewhat in the arena of world power balance.
This would particularly affect the U.S. In it's practice of blatantly invading sovereign states on childishly flimsy pretexts.
There at least should be some debate about why stable states with functioning governments should not be able to possess a nuclear deterrent. Modern weapons are smaller and more accurate and no longer create the threat of uncontrolled global nuclear destruction, as was commonly held to be the case during the Cold War era.
The absurdly arbitrary situation in relation to the west's attitude to nuclear deterrents is highlighted by the fact that both India and Pakistan have developed & possess nuclear weapons independently, but because the U.S. Could do nothing to stop them, they are now simply accepted as part of the "community". Talk about brushing under the carpet!
It is apparently also perfectly proper for the U.S. To supply & support Israel with the weapons, but no other states in that area. I wonder why?
Nuclear weapons are the only way it seems to stop imperialistic powers from threatening a country's sovereignty nowadays. With US and UK imposing their will on everybody else and waging wars on almost a yearly basis it seems, what other options are left? And as for the UN, opinions or votes of no other countries matters except the countries holding the veto power in the UN, we see that in palestine's case, where only a handful of countries voted against it's induction in the UN but 95% of the world population voted for it but ultimately only US OPINION AND VOTE MATTERED.
If we take a look at the nations possessing nukes, we can see that these countries have the worst record of waging war against innocent people and invading countries even before they possessed nukes (UK, FRANCE, RUSSIA, US) SO WHO ARE THEY TO DECIDE WHO GETS TO POSSESS NUKES AND WHO DOESN'T? These countries are scared that once most countries possess nukes THEY CAN'T INVADE THEM FOR NO REASON (LIKE IRAQ) AND THEY CANT IMPOSE THEIR DECISIONS ON THEM.
One thing that every nation strives to have in this weapon-dominated foreign policies of the developed countries is Security. And this can be achieved only if it has nuclear power. As an Indian, I feel that a country must be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, but, the power to use them on others must be taken care of by the United Nations Organization. By mentioning UN, I mean a fair one rather than the US dominated one.
When talking about balancing the power within the world and how we actually should survive our power, I say that having a nuclear power just like P5+1 countries should be a right for every country. Having a power means a development of sovereignty. Military power reflects the national security including the collective interest of whole country (the society). For this right to be given for a country should be in line with the interest of the society who really need protection. This right of having nuclear weapon can actually enhance the military power. This right actually exist when a country has the readiness and capability to create and preserve nuclear weapon. I'm not talking every country as all countries in the world. But rationally I talk about countries which basically can do such research and build nuclear weapons with full of protection system to avoid any dangerous toward its own society and another countries. When the capability including financial capability is ready, this country can be considered a right receiver.
If this world already recognized the P5+1 countries as the most rational actors of nuclear weapon owner, we can give them it but another thing is those countries are not neutral. There is a possibility of domination that those P5+1 countries do not want to give permission to other countries to have the same power as they enjoy. For example, USA do not like the idea of North Korea having a nuclear program and make effort for building nuclear weapon -- even today Israel consider Iran as a threat for posses nuclear weapon even after the new president said that he will keep the peace upon the nuclear progress.
Besides that possibility, we can only depend on P5+1 countries that basically have experiences upon nuclear weapon and over their own interest, we can lean on them for the judgement toward capability of a country to posses nuclear weapon and then the right will be granted as the mechanism already been fulfilled.
Back to the interest of whole countries that power should be remain balance. To balance what those countries have, we also should have. If those Nuclear weapon countries can be said as trustworthy countries because they never use their nuclear weapon, the same trust should be given to another countries as they also can be taken commitment to hold the weapon calm and preserve it just to balance the power within the world.
The world may remain peace if the power distributed equally. Equal sovereignty, trust, and power. None of countries wants their society to be attacked by nuclear, so all countries will never declare such nuclear war if they still remember their society's life and right to live in secure. What we actually should do is having A RULE toward possessing nuclear weapon, not fear of having such nuclear weapon. Just like using gun in USA, as they do not fear for the object, but the RULE that can be held there to regulate the usage and owner.
Because some countries have nuclear weapons, and one of those countries used it against another nation, and they will use it again if they consider it necessary, so yeah, every country have the right to posses nuclear weapons, not only the "chosen ones". You people know how things are in this reality.
One has said, “Nuclear weapons are the only peacekeeping weapons that the world has ever known. It would be strange for me to advocate for their abolition, as they have made wars all but impossible."
Nuclear weapons do make wars impossible and if every country has it, there might be no war and a world with no war, will be known as a peaceful world
If you live in any of the coastal and important countries of the U.S or in Japan, China, Russia, Europe, South Korea in fear of destruction of civilization you should have the rights to bear nuclear arms in defense against your enemy neighbors. So in this case yes, who doesn't agree with me?
It is not safe for certain countries to have nuclear weapons while others don't. I believe for example, that the United States are a lot more likely to cause world problems with weapons of mass destructions than lets's say the netherlands. However the Netherlands could suffer because of this. Nukes give countries unfit to handle nuclear weapons too much power, and the only reason the united states wants to keep their nuclear bombs and get rid of all other countries' nuclear bombs is because they want to be the most powerful country in the world again, as they once were. But that is not a good thing, 50% of americans didn't know that the earth revolved around the f¨cking sun! That is not the kind of country you want to give nukes to, without having other countries be able to protect themselves. Now I know that many people argue that many middle eastern countries shouldn't have nukes but if everyone has nukes it is not as much of a threat because if you do launch one of those the rest of the world will burn everything within your countries borders. It is much less dangerous for the whole world to have nuclear bombs.
Is only some countries can have them those countries will always have the power because the other countries will not be able of defending themselves in such a powerful way. If only some countries can have it i think maybe no one should have them. Its the same for everyone, now, non develop countries shouldnt because they probably wouldnt know how to used them, but its not fear to only the big countries having them and pushing others to do what they want through this.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
The problem with preventing countries from having nuclear weapons is complex. First of all, prevention means we live in a world that is segregated, with nuclear powers having the potential means to dictate their policies on defenseless non-nuclear powers. In addition, this very segregation will prompt frustration and resentment which in due time would prompt clandestine projects directed towards the acquisition of such weapons or other weapons with the goal of balancing the forces. Allowing the right to own nuclear weapons would not automatically mean that every country would possess such weapons, some countries would give up such capabilities, such is the case today with South-Africa for example, which had developed and tested nuclear weapons and in the end dismantled them. Humanity has to evolve, even if the cost of such an evolution is the loss of billions of life. Clearly, Technology evolves faster than our ethics. Ethics on the other hand evolve when biology and culture collide. The resulting conflict acts as a form of "informational feedback" telling people that there are serious problems that need to be resolved. War, genocide and destruction are a necessary evil for the evolution of our ethics.
UN is just a drama stage who shows drams under western influence. We talk about common rights equality distribution of power but only 6 countries riles other 186 countries in the world and do say what ever they want to those 186. Why they can't say anything against religious freedom in middle east why they can't say anything against american modern empiricism ?
If the usa has nuclear weapons why does it want other countries to not have any, I know that it would be dangerous and risky but other countries could get attacked by any country anytime.And even the USA could get elected another party and try to take over the world.So in conclusion The USA is selfish
It's foolhardy to think that countries that have nuclear weapons can justifiably tell others who don't that they can't also have them. Either we destroy them all or everyone gets to pursue them. I get where America is coming from. We feel we can be trusted to have them an not use them for terrorist purposes. But it's ludicrous hypocrisy to keep them while asking Iran to cease and desist. What gives up the right?
How selfish and unequal some persons AND NATIONS are. Is Israel, the USA, England, and the others that have nuclear weapons like little spoiled brats who always think that they should have their way about any and everything? Either NO nation should possess such weapons, or EVERY nation should not only have the right, but should get them ANYWAY, and my any means possible. Does the nations that are now on top really think and believe that they will always remain on top? NEVER !!! For those now on top shall certainly be destroyed, at some point and time, by some that are now being mistreated by the powers of today. And those that fall shall include ISRAEL and the United States, who must and will REAP WHAT THEY SOW. --- Rev. George Brooks
Good after noon fellow jihadists. Nuclear bombs and terrorists are like peanut butter and jelly. They fit together. Every time a terrorist strikes it is proven the world population is decreased by one. Imagine a suicide bomber with a nuke in New York city. The world population will decrease by eight million. Imagine all the resources we will have saved by giving them bombs. All you will see is dying people and melting faces.
Al Qaeda will rise.
Death to america
Understand that I am not saying I support the possession of nuclear weapons. The world would be a better place without them. However, I believe that it is a nation's right to be able to protect themselves in the event of a nuclear attack. Without the means of doing this, a country whom is being attacked, then becomes denfenseless in the face of the attacker.
US is saying they are superior and should we have to listen to US if every country can have we can be in global peace if every country have nukes they will be afraid to launch nukes on other countries because 1 not only they have nukes the opponent also have nukes 2 if a country attacks another with nukes then the opponent can also attack with nukes
If the so called 'superpowers' can bully the rest of the world with the threat of nuclear annihilation then why should the other governments of the world be allowed to build their own 'deterrents'. America/Israel are the victims becoming the perpetrators forgetting their past and embracing the hatred and spreading the fear. Racism & rampant facism. Destroy all weapons.
I believe nuclear weapons should never have existed, but they do! So why should some countries have more rights to own them than others? And why does USA not want Iran to possess them when the US own one themselves? Pure hypocrisy. If Iran shouldn't own one, so shouldn't USA and all the other countries that have them.
Although many say that how can you prevent the next "Hitler" from firing Nuclear bombs everywhere? I do believe that it's exactly the reason why all countries should have the right to create Nuclear Bombs if they want to so they could protect themselves.
Even if Nuclear bombs were not created, people would kill each other with whatever tools they have. So I do believe that the problem is not how destructive the weapon is but how human nature is.
Course it is fair. Who made the rules to suit one person but not the other. Its a frail attempt at keeping the current world leaders in the financial market on top. I can't wait for the day, and it will happen, that the US gets put in its place. I am going to clap and laugh. And i bet there are many others worldwide that are thinking the same. You will ask for help and you will not receive it. Hahaha. I'll support the other team thats for sure. But i can imagine in typical US style that the opposition will be classed as terriosts.
God gives every inhabitant of a state to protect his territory . So, no one should stop other(s) from possessing things. The brain behind those countries denying others is that they want to retain their political power using to exploit others.Have they forgot that some nations were having this power before them and they are no where to be found today? They don't need disturbing themselves , only GOD is the ever powerful one.
The US has nukes, but many developing countries dont. This is just unfair, since the US does not have a right over other nations. The US has no special privilege that allow it and all of its "buddies" to have nukes enough to destroy the planet, gladly tout them around, but not allow countries like Palestine, Iran, and N Korea to have nukes. These countries also want to have power and a voice. Nukes provide that to them.
Every single country on this planet should have Nuclear weapons as a deterrent to one another. Now, it is higly possible that some of them may use it, but we will have to deal with it. Why is America trying to stop other from making weapons when they themselves have dropped the atomic bomb in japan and killed scores of people. US should stop making rules for the rest of the world. Every country should start enriching Uranium and start making Nuclear Bombs. What will Iran do if Israel ( who has 190 Nuclear war heads) attack them. Stay Sildent? I dont think so.
The US (along with other countries who own nuclear weapons) is one of the superpowers of the world, correct? One of the reasons that we are led to believe that they should not is because "they don't know how to handle them correctly," or, "we don't trust them enough to not launch an attack on us as soon as they have the weaponry to do so." Any country who possesses nuclear weapons, whether we (US) trust them or not, will always act carefully. Kenneth Waltz once asked, "Why fight if you can't win and might lose everything?" That's a big risk for a small reward, and so countries will not attempt to start a nuclear war. Has anyone ever thought that we don't want nuclear weapons to proliferate (spread like wildfire) because we're afraid of losing our superpower status? Any country with nuclear weapons certainly has the power to do so, but will not because of the high-risk, low-reward deal.
Basically, let them have the right to possess them. It's unhealthy and dangerous for only some countries (mainly the superpowers of the world) to be the only ones to own nuclear weapons.
Because there is nothing anyone can truly do to take nuclear weapons away from countries that have them now. So to say no one is allowed to have them is pointless.
If we could take them away from all countries and also take away everyone's ability to make them again, I would say we should. But we can never do that. Given that, it would be foolish for the US to give up its nuclear weapons. If we have none and other countries do have them or have the ability to make them, we are at the mercy of those other countries.
In a perfect world, we would never have invented them. But that's not the world we live in and we will always need nukes.
It is completely unfair for certain countries to live in constant fear because a country with nukes is bullying them. A lot of times these countries can handle nuclear weapons they just aren't as economically stable as other countries because they do not have the same natural resources. If you really want to argue being fair you have to look at this fact above all else.
The real question should be, "Why does anybody still have nuclear weapons?" Like them or not, nobody who has nuclear arms is going to get rid of them voluntarily. I just find it hypocritical that a small number of countries can have them, and then go around policing and saying that nobody else can have them. Imagine you have a knife. Now imagine you know somebody that you don't like who wants a knife. Can you tell them it is not okay for them to have a knife because you don't like them, and then say you will stab them if they buy a knife? It doesn't matter whether or not you believe they are responsible enough to own a knife; if you want to go around stopping people from having knives, then why are you carrying one around? Now just substitute nuclear weapon in for knife. Do you think Iranians think that the U.S. Won't use Nuclear weapons? It's all relative to where you live. Really, nobody should have any weapons at all! But as long as somebody else has them, why shouldn't everybody?
We have no right to tell other leader how to run their country we have 8,500 nukes why wouldent they want protection against that? Russia has more then that do we really need that many when the third largest stock pile is only at 240? Thats like saying no one else can have guns yet you still have yours,you would be in control of everyone else with no chance of someone being able to stop them because they wouldent have any weapons to fight back
Nukes should be allowed in every single country because they are awesome, they are also good for defense just in case if other countrys use their nukes against the other countries. If the US can have nukes then why cant every country have them. This could hep every countries even in Africa and Sanchez country
What about Japan and South Korea? Both countries are under treat from North Korea who are unpredictable and can strike at any time. Not only don't they have their own nuclear weapons, they are having to rely of the USA for help and protection. In which if America decide stop protecting South Korea and Japan or and under attack themselves leaves South Korea and Japan vulnerable from attacks from North Korea
The main issue of contention over here is the right to possess nuclear weapons. The answer is pretty straight forward. As long as other countries such as the P5 and others possess a Nuclear Arsenal, the right to produce these weapons should be given to all countries as well. Otherwise this imbalance of power is the real cause of crisis and instability in the world. Either everyone has Nuclear Weapons or no one has them (which is extremely unlikely in the distant future).
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.
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.
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.
Nuclear weapons are a serious threat to the entire world. They are the worst guns that have ever been created by humans and no country should be allowed to possess them. Nuclear Proliferation Treaty demands for all states to renounce their nuclear ambitions and for the states that have nukes to get rid of them. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US was essentially a world referee that would call out the states that didn't comply with the rules of NPT. We condemned India, Pakistan, North Korea and Libya, when they were pursuing nuclear weapons. Most recently, we have been demonizing Iran for their enrichment uranium program. However, in order to retain credibility as a referee, the United States must stay loyal to the principles of NPT that it helped to establish.While we condemn Iran for developing nukes, we never said anything to Israel. Israel never announced that they have nukes, however, everyone knows that they do. Israel denied any access to its nuclear facilities and refused to cooperate with IAEA on its nuclear sites. The Iranians and others see that and take notice. While in theory NPT applies to everyone, there seems to be a double standard, which, of course, diminishes our credibility in the world. Everyone must obey the same rules without exceptions. US can't allow Israel to be exempts from international rules, just because Israel is "our buddy." Let me put it into context. If you are a referee and you allow one of your friends to ignore rules of the game, how do you call that? Cheating...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!!
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?
No country has the right to owning weapons capable of destroying millions of lives in the blink of an eye. WMDs should not exist, they only lead to intimidation, which leads to war, which causes more death. There is no situation where a nuke can be fully justified, our world would be better off without them
In my opinion our world should be free, not only should other countries not have nukes but neither should America, I mean why do we even need them, it isn't like other countries should launch nukes at us! Why is such a destructive weapon nuke needed, next nuclear bullets could be made, it is just annoying
Egyptian citizens are rebelling against the government right now. If all of a sudden the government of Egypt got nuclear missiles, the results would have been catastrophic. There are other countries like North Korea who guard the DMZ alongside UN forces. If North Korea got their hands on weapons as well, they could launch a war on the USA. Although the US killed thousands of people in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, we have never used another atom bomb ever.
Also, irresponsible countries could destroy Earth, killing everyone. No one would like to live a fate of nuclear war. During the Cold War, the USSR was delivering supplies to Cuba, and set up a military there. They could attack the US without the US knowing. Thankfully, JFK made the Soviet Union take the military supplies back. If not, then the results could've ended the US as we know it.
For these reasons, I think that nuclear weapons are very fragile, and should only be given to responsible countries like the USA. If in the wrong hands, who knows what could've happened?
Because they would never use them. The USA would never use them but I don't trust North Korea and Iran to name a few. Those countries cannot be trusted with a weapon of mass destruction. They would use nuclear weapons or threaten to use them to get what they want at the expense of other countries.
Every country except four( Israel, Pakistan, India, South Sudan) has signed the Treaty of Nuclear Non Proliferation. With this in mind, saying that the countries can have their nukes if they want is saying that the signing of that treaty means nothing, that it is worthless. If countries think this, who knows what other treaties theyll break. Also, the widespread possession of nukes would cause paranoia and fear of other different races, because every country would think the others would try to blow them up. And finally, the possession of nukes is not good for the " environment" which is what everyone is worried about these days.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
No country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons. Some may argue that if every single country possessed nuclear weapons, there would be absolutely no way that countries would use them against each other. However, what people don't realize is that it could cause a lot of tensions. A very good example is the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. There were times when either country threatened each other or other countries in the world which could have wiped out humanity all together. With every country possessing nuclear weapons, no one would be able to trust each other, and this could have some bad effects in the long run. An example is that there would be no more trade. Countries could possibly sever trading relations with each other in an attempt to possibly halt each other's expansion of nuclear weapons. One such example would be sanctions imposed on countries today over their disputed nuclear programs. The main reason why there are sanctions on North Korea is due to the fact that they already have a nuclear weapons program and nations across the globe are imposing sanctions to stop it. As we all know, North Korea has become very poor over the decades because of this. Now imagine a world without trade. Millions will be starving and there would be a lot of chaos. And the blame would fall on nuclear weapons. Why? Because some countries want to other countries to stop the expansion of their nuclear programs.
Building nuclear weapons itself costs a lot of money. That includes nuclear enrichment programs and a lot of research. With every single country obtaining nuclear weapons, countries will look for ways to defend themselves. That means spending extra money.
People would also hate each other. There would be widespread paranoia among people, especially in countries like the United States. There would be widespread persecution because one group of people who believe in a certain thing or things may not believe another group with a different belief because people (even now) look at the bad side of a group, race, or religion. The world, in other words, would become increasingly isolated.
To sum up, a world where every single country had nuclear weapons would result in racial/religious persecution, tensions, and economic problems, which hopefully no one would want.
Allowing nuclear weapons for every nation is like carrying a bomb that might explode any second. It carries a potential danger and creates tension among nations.
There are many national and international issues rising this present day. For example, Syria now, and Rwanda 2 years ago. These issues are little innuendos of what might happen in the future among nations. And if there were to be a World War III or some kind of disaster which many of the nations were involved in, and there was an option of using nuclear weapons, it would exacerbate the situation into a higher threatening chaos. Using nuclear weapon is not a simple attack. It means slaughtering massive number of people in a flash. For example, the United States' acquisition of nuclear weapon has a force of 1,800 megatons, which can obliterate humanity 18 times. Also, unfortunately , the U.S. Is spending some $27 billion (in 1997) $56 billion (in 2012) annually to maintain nuclear weapons instead of using that money for something more productive
Possession of nuclear weapons can also create tension among nations as exemplified by the Cold War between U.S. And Russia. The tension between these two powers led to decades of fear and hatred. Not only did the Cold War negatively affect Russia and U.S. But third countries like North Korea as well. North Korea has lately been a cause of heated issue with threats of nuclear attacks; one can relate these qualities to one of the negative effects from the Cold War, because USSR funded and armed North Korea with weapons.
Until a country can show stability and recognize human rights, it would be unwise to let them have nuclear capabilities. Showing that they care about their people would be and following the guide lines of international law, would prove they are able to handle such power and not be a threat to the world or neighboring countries.
If every country had the right to posses nuclear weapons, innocent lives would be taken all over the world even more than they already are. Countries could attack their own people with these weapons like Syria is doing. Countries would also attack each other and declare nuclear warfare on each other. I do not feel that this should be allowed what so ever because of the possibilities, the facts, and the innocent lives that will be taken in war.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!!
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.
It does not do anygood to anycountry a waste of resources and manpower
which could be used to the best of its own citizens lifting the poor from poverty. Effort must be made to force all countries to follow or the whole world should sanction these countries even the strongest one.
Some countries might use them in a negative way towards the world and get enemies which they might have not had otherwise. They might also abuse the power and dominate unjustly over other countries. There is a reason there is a list of countries which are allowed to posses nuclear weapons.
I don't think that all countries should have the right to possess nuclear weapons, as some of them are irresponsible and act accordingly. For example, the leader of North Korea appears to be somewhat crazy, would you really want leaders like him having access to these types of weapons? I think not.
However, I do also wish that we didn't have any use for these weapons and could simply get rid of them all, but what is to say that if one country gets rid of their weapons, that all of the others will do the same? If this situation occurs, then the one country who decided to do the right thing and get rid of their weapons will be left defenceless against such powerful weaponry.
Weapons of mass destruction, the ability to kill millions and destroy civilization... Do we never learn? Millions killed during two world wars and thousands in various skirmishes since then... Would the world not be a better place without nuclear weapons? Wouldn't it be great if we showed the world that we in Britain were going to get rid of our stockpile and that we were declaring peace with the world ? Of course that wont happen unless we as a people do something about it. I know of no one who wants a nuclear war, do you? If like me you dont imagine if everyone else felt the same. If we dont want a nuclear war we dont want weapons of mass destruction. Imagine what that could do to our economy. Imagine what it would do for the world. We would emerge as civilized beings and raise ourselves above the level of the beast. We cannot afford to have a nuclear capability if we want a better world for our children and our children's children. Weapons like these are not a deterrent, they are a waste of resources that will never be used.
Because of the destruction that it could cause between countries that for years have hated each other and for one problem one of the leaders could go crazy and start a nuclear war, other countries would get in and there goes our world. So we should have a conscience about what are we producing or making in our countries is it a place to fear or a place with peace ?
If all the countries had access to nuclear weapons, then the risk of war is possible. For example, right now the Middle East is in a huge state of conflict with each other. If all the countries were to develop nuclear warheads, it would be very easy to start a war. If one country attacked another with nuclear weapons, that country retaliated, and then the US might intervene if one of their allies is in danger. Soon, all the countries would be fighting each other, and the whole world would be in danger of nuclear destruction.
Not every country can handle the responsibilities of an atomic bomb. Sometimes if they fall into wrong hands then it is fatal. I think that only countries that have the proper government and are stable enough should be able to have nuclear bombs. Although nuclear energy is something every country has the right to have for civilian purposes only.
Some countries only think of conquering the world and becoming the strongest country. Because of this, they should not have the right to possess nuclear weapons. They will use them upon others and destroy the world or just cause havoc. If these weapons land in the wrong hands, our world will be dominated, possibly destroyed, and be ruined. In the first place, nuclear weapons shouldn't of been created either way. Since they already exist, we will just have to be cautious and not allow certain countries get their hands on them.
The main reasons of the world wars was because country leaders felt threatened by other country leaders, because or there marine power (Britain), forces ( Germany, Japan) and their allies(WWII: Britain had America, eventually, the commonwealth, France and Russia and Germany had Italy and the land they conquered)
Do we really want to have another one, this time much worse? This time boys and girls alike fight at the age of 15 or 16? Have whole countries wiped out and go from a population of 8 billion to maybe 3 million people? So really we dont need them, what we need to focus on is food supplies and the increasing unemployment for young people, that is where our energy should be, not fighting wars like the Iraq war because america or Britain felt threatened. I am not saying we get rid of everyones military forces but get rid of nukes so everyone has a fairer chance of surviving, otherwise it is another hunger games, except this is a reality!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
From a historical perspective, we have already witnessed the drastic and brutal bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The atomic age was created by the United States and they clearly misused it in order to take revenge on Japan. If a superior nation with strong military advantage (United States) can be so careless, what makes an ordinary citizen not consider the potential future impacts if all countries occupied the atomic bomb? Referring back to those two cities, they are continue to suffer from the radiation of the nuclear mutations that have devastated thousands of innocent children, women and men. In addition, as said by my fellow protester above, "If United States has one, why cannot everyone have it?" portrays a corrupted and ignorant mind of this debater. Occupation of this deadly weapon to all countries will not only threaten the worldwide unity, but will create a sense of strong tension which will engulf most of the citizens in the world.
Nuclear weapons are created for war and destruction -they are weapons of mass destruction. The main reason why countries want it is to raise their own power and make others fear them so that others will be too frightened to start a war against them. But this just makes people want to possess it even more to the point where everybody has it, so I ask the big question: what is the point ? It doesn't solve conflict but only creates it
In the United States, if you are convicted of murder you cannot legally buy a gun. In the nuclear world, if you are threatening to launch a bomb, then you should not be able to posess nuclear weapons. Lets look at MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction, a set of computers that go off if any country launches a bomb, giving other countries the choice to retaliate or shoot it down, or both) We have put MAD in place to assure that countries around the globe can be safe. In fact, it has been stated that Russia alone has enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world. FOUR TIMES OVER. We do not need unstable regions getting their hands on these weapons.
Now, lets look at the term loose nukes. This refers to very unprotected nuclear bombs, and scientists that could sell this information to anyone (including terrorists.) When the Soviet Union broke up, there were many nuclear weapons that just vanished (CFR has a report on this, very interesting.) Now, we must realize that the more unstable a country is, if they have nuclear weapons, these nuclear weapons are likely to get into the hands of the wrong people. Its really just a matter of time.
The Us and Russia and other countries that have them are trying to get rid of them by downsizing. Why is there a need for new countries to have them when we are trying to eliminate them here. There is no logical need for new countries to acquire nukes. They can defend themselves without this type of power which may be a problem for the west in the future.
Think about all the times that the United States was targeted for attacks and was attacked by terrorists. Then think about what will happen to that number if they have nuclear weapons. All I know is that once they have them they will be pointed in our direction. I think there should not be any nuclear bombs for any one either because everyone makes mistakes and one move all nuclear bombs can be armed and taking off before you know it.
They are the deadliest weapons ever found by this race of humans. Starting From the Japanese Massacre, it had been a great threat to humans. But if United Nations have the right to possess nuclear weapons, it doesn't mean that all countries should have nuclear weapons. Because if all the countries have nuclear weapons, there are chances to have a deadly WORLD WAR III. Do you people want to die? A WORLD WAR III will happen because all countries will get angry on each other and so on.
It's hard to imagine a stupider argument from fairness than, if we have it why not they? Iran is ruled over by theocratic zealots who believe in an apocalyptic world view which would be impervious to M.A.D. The idea that if there are countries (largely modern democracies) that have the bomb everyone should is like arguing that if grown ups can have guns and drink everyone should be able to. The postmodern conceit that all cultures are equal operates here as a form of suicidal folly - why not iran? Why not al qaeda?
Not only do I think that all should not but no one should be using them anyway. All it does is cause death and pure insanity to the ones that it hit. When Japan got hit it was a disaster. The bombs should not be used, unless we are in terrible danger.
If every country had nuclear weapons, they would find away to use them on their enemy country. Example - If Syria had nuclear weapons, they would use them on the U.S. Or on any other countries attacking them. The same goes for any other countries. The wo\hole world would be a war zone, and millions of people's life would be at risk.
I don’t think any country (including America) should have nukes. When an atom was split, a Pandora’s Box was opened, said Josh Clark. This means, when the nuclear bomb was created, the world was introduced to a whole new level of “Uh oh.” He also said that a nuclear weapon was the most destructive weapon known to mankind, and nuclear bombs in the hands of just one country could give this country power over the world. Why do we even need nukes? It is most likely we will just wipe out each other, anyways.
They are way too devastating and the countries should still be able to defend themselves in an emergency situation.
I really think that the world would not get into chaos just because we don't have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons just kill WAY to many innocent people during war, and leave a trace of radioactive materials for many years after the bombs are detonated, making the whole area unlivable.
Before I begin my input let me ask a question. Do you honestly think something like the Virginia Tech Shooting or Columbine Massacre would have been prevented if every kid in those schools had a gun? Hell no... There probably would have been 30 times the events. When we are talking about something as powerful as a nuclear weapon there is no rational justification that would ever say every country should posses one. With such theories as the security dilemma, international tension would be far too superior to prevent a nuclear war.... So we'd probably all die.
If every nation-state had a nuclear weapon what would stop Saudi Arabi from telling Israel to get the f#&* off of Palestine's "territory" before we nuke you. The nation-states that posses them today possess them as a sign of hierarchy in the international system, and only have them due to tensions in the Cold War. There is no longer any purpose for them, and are nothing but an insurance to prevent Kim Jong and any other loony like him to know they can't go crazy and think they're gonna go all Mojo-Jojo on the globe.
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
No country should, and no country should be allowed to tell other countries whether they should or shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons when they hold nuclear weapons themselves. No government is a perfect good guy, and no government is a perfect bad guy. They should be banned all around.
At the time this was written, The Syrian Civil War is being fought between the Assad regime and the rebels. If either side had nuclear weapons, there would be nothing stopping a nuclear detonation. With the current tensions, some dictators will realize that they are doomed if they don't launch nuclear weapons. They are like cornered animals. This is not good for anybody on the planet.
There are many countries out there can can be trusted with such weapons, but many countries have lied to us behind our backs (Iran) and others that have terrorist groups within them and their government. We should not trust the most dangerous weapon known to man to countries like these.
We are a part of an age of clashing ideals. As globalization unites us, some of us refuse to become cosmopolitan. We refuse to let go of tradition and culture and beliefs. These things are not evil or bad, but when we refuse to adapt them or at least accept that other people have differing beliefs and we don't respect them, we are confronted by extremism. Extremism is an irrational response in itself, and it is the idea that allows a man to throw aside self preservation and go to the extreme in things like suicide bombing. In certain areas around the world, like the Arabian peninsula, political shifts are commonplace. If the country is not stable, and an extremist takes over and is in sole command of such power as WMD's, we are in danger of them being willing to use them with no regard for their own self preservation.
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.
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.
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?!?
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.
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
well the porblem is that countries cannot control themselves
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.