Why aren't other countries allowed to have nuclear weapons?

[weakmagneto]

K - This question will probably get me crucified or at the very least educated, but why are certain countries allowed to have nuclear weapons while others are not? What makes the other countries feel that they should be the only ones allowed to create weapons of mass destruction? Who makes them the "good guys"? Who gives them that authority?

I couldn't imagine another country invading my country by bringing in its military forces saying they are looking for weapons of mass destruction...

[Forest_Dump]

Given that a number of countries, including Canada since the severing of diplomatic relations with Iran on Friday, appear to be poised to take unilateral military action against Iran, this is a timely question. Although it certainly appears that Iran is another "thug" country and is probably involved in terrorism, etc., in essence we are taking the work about nuclear weapons being developed in Iran from the same people who talked about the WMD in Iraq. And, of course, we know that in the same region Israel, not exactly a nation overly respectful of otherpeople's rights, etc., and Pakistan already have nuclear weapons. Frankly, whatever my political or religious beliefs, if I were running Iran I would want a nuclear deterrent too.

[CanadysPeak]

K - This question will probably get me crucified or at the very least educated, but why are certain countries allowed to have nuclear weapons while others are not? What makes the other countries feel that they should be the only ones allowed to create weapons of mass destruction? Who makes them the "good guys"? Who gives them that authority?

I couldn't imagine another country invading my country by bringing in its military forces saying they are looking for weapons of mass destruction...

Almost everybody agreed to that in the late 60s. You're probably too young to remember, but we came with a few seconds of armageddon several times back then. I think we all scared ourselves, so we tried to put a halt to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_ ... ar_Weapons

[Forest_Dump]

Almost everybody agreed to that in the late 60s. You're probably too young to remember, but we came with a few seconds of armageddon several times back then. I think we all scared ourselves, so we tried to put a halt to it.

Sure but the people who caused all those problems still have their nukes.

[Forest_Dump]

And to be fair, I think some of the countries with nukes that agreed not to proliferate any more have resisted the urge to invade anyone else since. I think.

[CanadysPeak]

Almost everybody agreed to that in the late 60s. You're probably too young to remember, but we came with a few seconds of armageddon several times back then. I think we all scared ourselves, so we tried to put a halt to it.

Sure but the people who caused all those problems still have their nukes.

Silly boy. You can't be an imperial power without a few nukes. Do try to be realistic.

[wolfhnd]

If you over simplify the issues, maybe you could reduce it to an issue of "fairness" but I'm not sure that the world would be a better place without "imperialism". If you are the victim the easy conclusion is that the world would be a better place without your oppressor but that is too simplistic for my taste. It's also easy to sympathize with the oppressed but again that is just too easy.

[Eighty]

K - This question will probably get me crucified or at the very least educated, but why are certain countries allowed to have nuclear weapons while others are not? What makes the other countries feel that they should be the only ones allowed to create weapons of mass destruction? Who makes them the "good guys"? Who gives them that authority?

I couldn't imagine another country invading my country by bringing in its military forces saying they are looking for weapons of mass destruction...

Hey Weakmagneto,

That's a very good question and personally, I have a few thoughts on it:

1) Faith. Very simply put, many of the nations that are allowed to have nuclear weapons (primarily in Europe, and N. America) are believed to act in good faith, relative to the industrialized countries of the world (which happen to be many of the same countries) which leads into point 2.

2) Many of the nations that have nuclear weapons played some kind of part in the major-development of nuclear weapons back in the 40's. Russia and her allies on one side (China turned out to be an ally in later years) and the U.S. and her allies (Europe) on the other side. Strategy and fear-mongering helped to dictate which nations held nuclear weapons and which ones did not (very applicable to today).

Nuclear Proliferation is very serious. The more nuclear weapons in the world the greater the chance they stand to fall into the wrong hands. No one wants that!

I don't see how anyone that wants nuclear weapons can stand to have a legitimate reason for them these days.

[wolfhnd]

I think the key here is that once you have nuclear weapons your country is no more secure than it was without them if it does not give you mutually assured destruction. If you accept that premise then the only use they could have is terrorism. If Saddam would have had them how could he have used them and would he had not been invaded anyway?

[Whut]

What makes the other countries feel that they should be the only ones allowed to create weapons of mass destruction?

It's not a blank slate. There was a scramble, then a crackdown. Why shouldn't more nations have nukes? Because they have the potential to cause mass destruction.

Who gives them that authority?

Power is authority.

[CanadysPeak]

If you over simplify the issues, maybe you could reduce it to an issue of "fairness" but I'm not sure that the world would be a better place without "imperialism". If you are the victim the easy conclusion is that the world would be a better place without your oppressor but that is too simplistic for my taste. It's also easy to sympathize with the oppressed but again that is just too easy.

Perhaps I am too quick to toss off the label of "imperialism;" nonetheless, we went down that path in the 50s and 60s. There is no rational national defense policy, no possible humanitarian purpose, no legitimate "sphere of influence" doctrine that could account otherwise for our consideration of the use of nuclear weapons against the Viet-Minh at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. We sought, perhaps subconciously, to maintain our economic and cultural hegemony over as much of the non-West as we could.

Douglas McArthur, John Foster Dulles, and Lyman Lemnitzer, to name those whom quickly come to mind, all thought of nuclear weapons as legitimate projections of US power.

I think the damage done by such policies impacted the US as much, or perhaps more, as it did those toward whom it was aimed. It always reminds me of the Davy Crockett Nuclear Rifle, developed during the height of the Cold War. The idea was that, in the event of a massive Soviet tank breakthrough onto the central plains of Germany, US infantrymen could quickly drive one of these small nukes up as close as they could get to the tanks, shoot the missle a kilometer or three, and then . . . oh crap, we can't run that fast!! The leaders in Washington saw nations and humans as merely pieces on a game board.

[Ecurb]

I don't think any country should be allowed to have nukes unless they have proven their willingness to use them. Countries unwilling to use their nukes are mere posers. Of course, the U.S. is the only nation that has actually nuked anyone -- so we should be the only country that has nukes.

[wolfhnd]

I watched a documentary recently about some Russians and their lives growing up in the 50s and 60s. What was interesting is that while we were learning to hide under our desks at school they were trying to enjoy life. Apparently none of them believed that the threat of nuclear war was terribly real. I think that it is more a case of US paranoia being a danger than imperialism. The Cuban missiles crisis is an illustration of how dangerously paranoia can be. A state of fear is a very dangerous place to be in. We can very close to losing WWII and our military leaders knew something that the general population did not and that is that the Russian military machine crushed Germany. I believe that has something to do with the fear men like Douglas McArthur were working under. In their minds only nuclear weapons prevented Stalin from conquering the world. It is a common side effect of paranoia that the victim be unable to understand the level of threat that others pose.

All nations try to exploit their advantages and it isn't so much a case of good guys and bad guys but good and bad collective mentalities and policies. None are perfect.

[moranity]

we Britons have nuked some of our own soldiers and some kangeroos, so there.... and the french were constantly nuking fish for a while and did kill some hippies, lest we forget, who complained about the nuking of fish

[CanadysPeak]

I watched a documentary recently about some Russians and their lives growing up in the 50s and 60s. What was interesting is that while we were learning to hide under our desks at school they were trying to enjoy life. Apparently none of them believed that the threat of nuclear war was terribly real. I think that it is more a case of US paranoia being a danger than imperialism. The Cuban missiles crisis is an illustration of how dangerously paranoia can be. A state of fear is a very dangerous place to be in. We can very close to losing WWII and our military leaders knew something that the general population did not and that is that the Russian military machine crushed Germany. I believe that has something to do with the fear men like Douglas McArthur were working under. In their minds only nuclear weapons prevented Stalin from conquering the world. It is a common side effect of paranoia that the victim be unable to understand the level of threat that others pose.

All nations try to exploit their advantages and it isn't so much a case of good guys and bad guys but good and bad collective mentalities and policies. None are perfect.

Much of that difference was due to the official Soviet position on nuclear war - that it would not come from a surprise attack, but rather following a long period of increasing tension, thus giving people time to build shelters and move into them - and the propaganda that supported this position at every level. Persons identified as critical to the Soviet cause were assigned shelters and did take part in drills; the average Ivan was expendable.

I'm not sure we were paranoid. The Soviet threat was quite real. They made many feints, of which Cuba was one. We may have over-reacted at times, but the threats were real.

[wolfhnd]

I agree the threat was real, I'm sure that MAD is real. What I'm saying is that there is a difference between rational caution and preparedness as apposed to paranoia. Between 1945 and 1965 I would argue that the only military asset the US had that countered the Russians and Chinese forces was nuclear weapons. The development of tactical nuclear weapons by the US highlights the difference in conventional strength.

[owleye]

Because Israel doesn't want it, fearing its own extermination. Israel is a nation largely driven by such fear, so much so that it requires a huge investment of arms, to include its own nuclear capability to maintain its superiority in the region. And this fear is amplified by its being isolated by much of the world community, save the U.S., itself a fear-ridden country, heavily armed as it is.

From the standpoint of both the U.S. and Israel, they are entitled by their goodness to defend themselves against evil, while the evil have no right to defend themselves. Evil is allowed to exist only if it is impotent.

For some reason, neither the U.S., nor Israel can put themselves into the shoes of Iran. See this, and tell we whether Iran shouldn't be worried?

James

[CanadysPeak]

I agree the threat was real, I'm sure that MAD is real. What I'm saying is that there is a difference between rational caution and preparedness as apposed to paranoia. Between 1945 and 1965 I would argue that the only military asset the US had that countered the Russians and Chinese forces was nuclear weapons. The development of tactical nuclear weapons by the US highlights the difference in conventional strength.

Both the US and the Soviets had tactical nukes, but I agree that our nuclear arsenal was the only real deterrent we had against all those Soviet tanks sitting up there in the Fulda Gap. The Chinese were perhaps a different story, as they had no overwhelming conventional strength other than numbers before the 60s. During WWII, the Eighth Route Army was known, not for it's strength, but for it's ability to replace casualties almost without end. Much of that philosophy carried forward into the 50s.

[Forest_Dump]

Lets not forget the Chinese and Russians went at it tooth and nail during the 1970s even though both had nukes. No love lost there.

[wolfhnd]

Lets not forget the Chinese and Russians went at it tooth and nail during the 1970s even though both had nukes. No love lost there.

The mentality of the men who ran the military in the US for 50 years following WWII was formed around there experiences in WWII and the Korean war. Both the Chinese and the Russians fought with the North Koreans during the Korean war. I would say they had reason to fear a Russian, Chinese alliance.