Metanet Forums

List of states with nuclear weapons

The whole western world seems to be against Iranian nuclear program, but isn't it hypocritical when we look at the list of countries with nuclear weapon? Why are some countries allowed to have it, and some are not? Of course, the best solution would be allowing no country to have it, but since that obviously isn't going to happen, isn't allowing every country to have one logical?

EdoI wrote:List of states with nuclear weapons

The whole western world seems to be against Iranian nuclear program, but isn't it hypocritical when we look at the list of countries with nuclear weapon? Why are some countries allowed to have it, and some are not? Of course, the best solution would be allowing no country to have it, but since that obviously isn't going to happen, isn't allowing every country to have one logical?

Hmm, this is an interesting topic. The role of the nuclear bomb in the modern world is to prevent wars from happening - no-one wants to be on the receiving end of a weapon that could potentially wipe their country off the map. However, this is actually ineffective as one look at the history of the world in the last 20 years will tell you: Afghanistan, Iraq, The Falklands...the nations who have the nuclear bomb understandably don't want to use it, so this defeats the intented purpose, because countries can risk wars knowing that, say the U.S. for example, won't want to use their nuclear weapons.
I don't think every country should have one: all it takes is one mad government with access to nulcear weapons to start nuclear armageddon. A better solution might be to allow only the most powerful countries to have them, for example U.S.A, U.K, Russia, France, Japan, Australia, and a few others (I'm not sure about China).

I'm not sure whether I'm in favour of the Iranian Nuclear Programme; on one hand, the presence of a nuclear weapon in the Middle East might stabilise the area, but then again it might also spark off a nuclear war, as I mentioned earlier, and I'm sure that the last thing we want is a Dr. Strangelove-like situation on our hands.

Because we're stable?
(For the most part, anyway.)

It's not hypocritical for the same reason that it's fine to own a big stick for your own protection but not want your schizophrenic neighbor to have one.

EdoI wrote:...isn't allowing every country to have one logical?

Of course not. Use your common sense--it may be 'logical', but it's not feasible, and that's a good thing.

nuclear weapons are the best peace keeping agent you can have. Simply put, like others have said before nobody wants to trigger a nuclear war. Because no one ends up winning, But I don't think everyone should have them. It may not sound fair but it is. Take the USA for example. We can just fire off a nuke whenever we want. We have protocols for that sort of thing. So no I don't think everyone should have nukes.

States that are run by governments that were not elected, or who came to power through some sort of militant movement hardly possess the same knowledge or compassion that our leaders have. Look at Pakistan. They have nuclear weapons, and as the Taliban approach their capital, it is becoming an imminent threat to us. Not because Pakistan can`t control their weapons, but because the militants certainly won't.

Well nuclear weapons aren't toys. And thats the problem. You have people in different countries who think thats exactly what they are.

Alex777 wrote:Well nuclear weapons aren't toys. And thats the problem. You have people in different countries who think thats exactly what they are.

No, I think they very much intend to kill violently, and that's exactly what the expect the nuke to do.
I think they don't take reason seriously.

Nukes don't kill people. Theocracies do.

Depends on the theocracy. But yeah, there are religions that believe their lot in life is to bring about Armageddon, so triggering a nuclear war really wouldn't trouble them at all.

Of course, we can't outlaw nukes—well, we can, but it would be like outlawing war. I don't want the US to be forced to test Star Wars, in any case.

Didn't Stalin's regime kill more people than the Hiroshima Japan bombings?

EDIT: Meant to write Japan, not Hiroshima.

Techno wrote:Didn't Stalin's regime kill more people than the Hiroshima Japan bombings?

EDIT: Meant to write Japan, not Hiroshima.

If you're implying that Stalin's leadership was an example of atheists in power, that's very inaccurate. Even atheists like Mao, Stalin, and Hitler saw the need to set up totalitarian states that put them in the position that past cultures would call a god-king. They had personality cults and everything, for crying out loud. These are the most dangerous aspects of theocracies, and they go hand in hand with religious thinking.