Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When China wanted to develop a nuclear weapon, the nationalistic message was if the Soviets and the Americans have it, why can't China?
Same thing with Iran, North Korea, and any other nation. How come they can't develop nuclear weapons?
The so called non-proliferation treaty is even hypocritically worded. It doesn't say getting rid of nuclear weapons. It says "don't share it." Is that right?
Mod Note: The use of can't refers towards why isn't it permissible rather than a question of not being able.
This question has been asked ever since other countries have developed nuclear weapons. If you have it why can't I have it? We know the damage a nuclear weapon can inflict upon a peoples and we abhor the destruction it did to Japan, this is why we have chosen never to use it again. Most countries that have nuclear capabilities would only use them as a last resort and not as a preemptive weapon, I feel that N. Korea and Iran would fall under this also. N. Korea only bring these out when they need food or they feel they are being ignored. To use these type of weapons in today's world would be inviting the total destruction of your own country, in one form or another.
Just imagine what would happen if a group like ISIS got it's hands on a nuclear weapon. ISIS would have no hesitation at all on using these weapons even if they had to be delivered via back pack.
The question is, could we trust a country enough to insure they wouldn't allow their weapons to fall into the hands of groups that are like ISIS.
For the same reason you let the cop have a gun, but you take the gun away from the terrorist. Because the cop will (theoretically) use the gun to keep people safe (young black males in hoodies aside), and the terrorist will use the gun to shoot up a movie theater.
The US doesn't go around nuking countries whose religion or politics we don't like. North Korea most likely would do so. It is the responsibility of the more "responsible" countries to try and prevent the more "terrorist" countries from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. So that they don't turn around and nuke the entire world.
Most countries that have nuclear capabilities would only use them as a last resort and not as a preemptive weapon, I feel that N. Korea and Iran would fall under this also.
Many, many, many people would disagree with this assessment of N. Korea and Iran.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terryj
N. Korea only bring these out when they need food or they feel they are being ignored.
Oh my. Needing food or feeling like you are being ignored is definitely not a good reason to use a nuke. And yes, N. Korea probably would nuke people under those circumstances. Which is EXACTLY why the rest of the world doesn't want them to have nukes.
the question of iran vs. north korea is interesting. there are probably more energy interests in the middle east that make it more important to prevent a nuclear iran. the other thing is that people already know they can do nothing to change north korea's ambitions.
because those in power loose their exclusive mace to stomp and bully other countries. You may have seen or witnessed moronic USSR leaders back in time, that behaved like apes in cultured society - and no one really hushed them. Why? Because USSR had the biggest army, huge nukes arsenal, most tanks and what not in the world. BVut, the very moment Gorbi sold country out and their nukes got cut and dismantled - oh, how did the attitude change, right?
I would take the position that you don't allow DPRK to have nuclear weapons for the same reason you don't let severely mentally ill people have guns.
In that same vein, there are some new analyses out in the past month that suggest all those purges Kim Jong Un has been carrying out have left no one in his inner circle with the age, wisdom and experience to deter him from doing something stupid...
With respect to Iran, that nation is my leading candidate for the role of 'suicide bombing nation.' I can see them destroying Israel with a nuclear weapon and then accepting the inevitable retaliation as 'martyrdom' - writ large. According to the teachings of Ali Sharadat (who wrote the theological justifications for Khomeini back in the late 1970s), that would reward every Iranian who died in the retaliatory strike with a permanent place in Paradise. The government of Iran has not changed since those basic tenents were adopted in the nation's constitution.
Sounds weird, but those of us who study this stuff every day consider this is a very real potential outcome of a nuclearized Iran.
Having huge weapons means that you don't have to pander, its good to always do business above board but as soon as someone else trys to use there leverage to give you a bad deal all you have to do is remind them of the hell fire drone to encourage a proper discussion.
A for instance would be if you had a mining operation or oil operation in some part of the world that was agreed too (and was a fair deal) and suddenly some new leader takes over after all the infrastructure is developed and wants to take it, well you just have to calmly remind them of the carrier group off the coast and the F18 over head with a sniper covering you.
Most of the world ONLY responds to force, without that force they will try to exploit you. The USA going in and exploiting other people is a realtivly new thing that started up around the time of Vietnam and then proliferated as corporations gained control of our political process. Now we blow people up so that a companies stock goes up a quarter percent.
We developed the nuke in self defense because Japan refused to surrender and continued aggression. Japan could have taken over all of China and the south china sea area and we would have let them because it was not our fight.
I don't know that the Russians actually chopped up their nukes, I don't think they are that stupid.
The issues come when those tools are used to chase people down who are not at the table and blow them up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz
because those in power loose their exclusive mace to stomp and bully other countries. You may have seen or witnessed moronic USSR leaders back in time, that behaved like apes in cultured society - and no one really hushed them. Why? Because USSR had the biggest army, huge nukes arsenal, most tanks and what not in the world. BVut, the very moment Gorbi sold country out and their nukes got cut and dismantled - oh, how did the attitude change, right?
Because those countries that currently have most of the power don't want any competition to rise up and potentially challenge their dominance.
We're still playing a game of "dominant vs submissive ape", only on a bigger scale.
THIS ^ It's basically survival/domination of the strongest. There is no doubt the PRIMARY goal of denying nuclear weapons to countries that don't have them is for those that have them to retain the power that comes with them. You can argue all you want about intentions but you can't argue about known capabilities to cause destruction. With these capabilities comes the ability to tremendously influence world affairs. Add to that the impact of crippling economic sanctions, you can see why Iran gave up their nuclear weapons program. NK is also under sanctions but their leader doesn't care about anything except his perceived power. As far as the reasons being told to the world of not allowing certain states to have nukes, I believe it's like others have stated, the belief that Iran and NK would pose a "threat" to those around them with even a single nuke, never mind the fact that there are over 15,000 nuclear warheads possessed by other states. Personally I don't believe either Iran's leaders or Kim from NK are suicidal, but others may argue they are. People can argue until they're blue in the face about whether it's "fair" or not but the bottom line is that the strong dictate to the weak what they're allowed to do. It's always been that way and probably always will.
Regarding the other nuclear powers that came after the US, I don't know if any of them faced similar sanctions or concerns like Iran and NK when they were developing their weapons.
Last edited by WannabeCPA; 01-25-2016 at 09:28 PM..
some of you mentioned that the US can be trust to have it and north korea can't. One poster even said north korea is more likely to use it, and America somehow doesn't go around using it.
The irony is that the united states is the only country that ever used it on humans. TWICE. get it now? so how come america has it then?
the insanity argument doesn't hold at all. the one that used it, the usa, therefore is the crazy.
i am aware that they have nuclear capabilities. my question was more principle and philosophical. indeed, if a few countries can have it, then other countries should be able to have it too.
if you want to look at kim jong un, should people look at American behavior abroad, in iraq, afghanistan, etc.? at least, kim didn't invade another country.
Unfortunately life isn't a theoretical game at the philosophy course, my friend. There is simply too much at risk.
some of you mentioned that the US can be trust to have it and north korea can't. One poster even said north korea is more likely to use it, and America somehow doesn't go around using it.
The irony is that the united states is the only country that ever used it on humans. TWICE. get it now? so how come america has it then?
the insanity argument doesn't hold at all. the one that used it, the usa, therefore is the crazy.
Did you read my post? It's basically the strong dictating to the weak what they can and cannot do in order to keep the status quo. It's about power. Like another poster said, it's about the dominant/submissive ape scenario on a global scale. Yes I realize there are genuine threats out there, but the bottom line is that this is about power, and who gets to stay on top. Iran having one nuke isn't going to destabilize the world any more than Israel being allowed to have dozens of nukes without any IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspectors being allowed access, like they were with Iran. The difference? Israel is supported or at least tolerated by the West, Iran isn't. There's the power difference.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
