Y is it that only the US  allows itself to keep and devolp nuclear expriments and weapons, and doesn't allow others to? I really do know y (To stay the strongest, and every other country weaker) but I wanna have ur opinions.
125321
The USA is NOT the only country with nuclear capabilities, and further, the USA does NOT regulate who can and can not have them either. There are currently 8 countries which have nuclear capabilities. The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Association) is responsible for deciding who should or should not be allowed to gain this right, and there are rules and steps to follow to earn that right.
173459
Because the nuclear powers got together decades ago and made a series of agreements prohibiting the spread of nuclear weapons to other nations, in an effort to prevent it from getting out of hand.  By preventing nukes from spreading willy-nilly around the world, and controlling the nuclear capable powers, it limited the number of nations that had to be convinced to destroy the nukes and remove the threat.\n\nOf course, the fallacy with that theory is that, "once the genie is out of the bottle, it is really tough to get it back in."  In other words, now that we know how to make nuclear weapons, we can't make that knowledge just vanish by destroying the nukes that currently exist, which is why there are still nuclear capable nations in the world.\n\nIran is one of many non-nuclear powers that are signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), stating for all to see that they would never, ever try to become nuclear capable, either by buying them from other countries or making them for themselves.\n\nNow they've been caught preparing to make fission weapons (there's no need to enrich uranium other than to make bombs -- don't let anyone fool you into believing that they need enriched uranium for power reactors -- that's just BS)) and are threatening to withdraw from the NPT so they can build bombs that they can use then on Israel and anyone who threatens them in any way.  Oh, and they can then sell them to Islamic extremists/terrorists to use on whomever they decide to hate that day (like the U.S.).\n\nDoesn't that just make your day?
266312
Wrong Buddy. Remember you have some crazy people who will do anything to get a nuke in their hands. Anyone from terrorists, to warlords. The civilized world, notice like the US, France, Britain, and so forth, use their nukes as a deterrent. You know u nuke me, I'll nuke you back. Crazy countries like Iran just wants nukes to WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH!!! So therefore, it is in the best interest of the civilized world that certain countries contain and hold nukes.
302732
Yes we have to do whatever is necessary to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of fanatic govt rulers.If we want the world to stand as it is.
307932
The U.S. has not used a nuclear weapon at all, be it civililian or militarily, since Japan and the end of WWII, a MUCH different time than today.  I have heard claims, however, of people that believe the U.S. has freely, and openly been using "tactical nukes" in the Middle East.  This is not true.  What a lot of people are mentioning is known as depleted uranium.  While it's not exactly the greatest stuff on Earth, it is far from what some believe it is to be--a type of nuclear weapon.  It's actually used in many civilian applications as well.\n\nhttp://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/\n\nAs far as the U.S. having weapons, it's known that we have decreased our arsenal, but at the same time, still have a large amount.  Is it possible that someone could get a hold of them?  Sure, I would suppose, but why bother the U.S. and the military that is surely guarding our stockpile when you could get it for a price just by asking in some parts of the world.  \n\nThe United States will forever maintain a nuclear arsenal for strategic purposes.  It is impossible to believe that if we took the lead and destryoed every one that we had, that the rest of the world would follow suit.  We'd be left unprotected, and the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction--one of the main reasons the Cold War went the way it did--would be eliminated, leaving us naked and extremely vulnerable.  We maintain them anymore as defense, though I truly believe that in this political climate, we will never see the day that the U.S. fires an offensive nuclear attack...I think defensive may even be a stretch.  \n\nThe reason that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons is simple.  They have made their intentions known, and I truly believe that it is simply a matter of time before they place one on top of a missile and fire one into Israel, and one into Iraq (to wipeout any remaining U.S. and coalition forces).  While some believe that Iran is bluffing, and claim that they do not have the technology, I'll leave the bluffing to the poker players, and take the threat of a nuclear weapon coming out of Iran in the near future as a very serious one.
565699
america doesn't give a shit about other people, they've supported probably half the dictators around the world at one time or another, we supplied both iraq and afghanistan with weapons when it was in our best interest. The wmd thing is bullshit, do you really think the united states would attack country that actually had nukes? of course not that's we invaded iraq and not north korea
206259
Yes, Seneca said that.  Interesting that you would quote him. Do you know what his point was in saying "Be careful that your enemies dont get your weapons"?  Sounds a lot like that quote is very much in support of limiting nuclear proliferation Would it be best if nobody had nukes?  In the 50 years before nuclear weapons were invented, over 100 million people were killed in wars.  And in the 60+ years since, is that true?  If the US destroyed all of it's nuclear weapons, do you seriously believe this would end the problem?  That countries like North Korea and Iran would generously quite trying to build them?  The US, along with the EU, is trying to stop other countries from building nuclear weapons.  Are you trying to say that because the US, France, and the UK, among others, have nuclear weapons, that they should not try to stop proliferation?  Are you saying that the US and those other countries should get rid of their nuclear weapons, and thus would miraculously cause everyone else to stop building them?  Think about it-the US is hated by many powerful countries.  If the US got rid of their nuclear weapons, would that tend to make those countries more eager, or less, to build a weapon that, once the US had none, could aid these other countries in actually defeating the US on a battlefield?  Think through your argument- The US having nuclear weapons may be a problem, but it is unrelated to nuclear proliferation.  And, the US is not leading the battle to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the EU is.
81984
In the sense of superpowers of the cold war period, the United States is the only Superpower left.\n\nOf those countries with nuclear weapons few have the delivery capability to get something to our shores and fewer yet could actually hurt our country.  The fact is, the United States has the capability to eliminate all of those countries.  Most importantly the United States has demonstrated restraint in the use of its power.  Lastly, other than the lunatic fringe (such as the terrorists) it is not in the interest of any other country to attack the United States.
169932
The problem with this lead by example plan is that people won't follow the example.  The U.S. dismantling it's military would lead to the destruction of the United States.  The U.S. has an important role to play in the world in fighting terrorism and stopping extremist nations from getting nuclear weapons.  It's important to remember the lessons of history, when the U.S. had an isolationist attitude, Hitler was able to kill millions of people.  If the U.S. would have been willing to intervene earlier, then there would have been far less deaths.  Countries like Iran are ran by people who are just as evil as Hitler and have some of the same intentions.  Such as wiping an entire Jewish country off of the map.  The U.S. must stop things like this from happening.
245663
The Armageddon is the one that holds the nuke. America is one of them, and we are the only Nation to use the weapon. What makes you think it hasn't already started when America nuked Japan? There is a 1000 years of suffering afterward. I think it happened back then myself. Nobody knows if we are supposed to live in a Garden of Eden, or struggle with wars and Capitalism. Think about it and read what is said in Mathew from Jesus.
637665
it depends on how you define WMD, really it does, by one definition lots of other countries have used them, by other definitions they haven't...based on US definitions it really seems to depend on how the US feels about that country at the time.
337288
askwrites is an idiot.  In an ideal world that would work, but in an ideal world no one would make nuclear weapons to begin with. \n\nTrue the U.S. is the only country that used nuclear weapons, but do the research and the study. There were many lives saved on both sides by doing so.  An invasion of Japan would have cost millions of lives on both sides. Also, we did not know about the fall out from nuclear weapons was so bad. \n\nPersonally, I don't think any group should be able to build nuclear devices. That's one of the responsibilities of the U.N. I just wish that other countries would step up and do things about the injustices in the world other than the U.S.
408689
Ok and you can find articles on how to build nuclear weapons on the internet do that mean you have one or even have the capacity to make one in your basement? So what l am sure he was trying from the 90's to build one but that don't mean he had one and we had to rush to war to stop him from using it.
583625
This last guy just typed out a lot of bullshit. I am pissed at myself for even reading all of that crap. And espike is wrong about the no-first use. The US not only maintains that it may use it first but it also maintains that it may use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state.\n\n1. The United States is one of the five "nuclear weapons states" permitted to maintain a nuclear arsenal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it was an original signatory on July 1, 1968 (ratified March 5, 1970). Although the The 5 NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party, the United States, for instance, has indicated that it may use nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "rogue states". \n\n\n2. The U.S. cancelled its offensive biological weapons program by executive order in November 1969 and February 1970 and ordered the destruction of all offensive biological weapons by February 1973. The U.S. ratified the Geneva Protocol on January 22, 1975. In March 1975, the U.S. ratified the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). \n\n\n3. In May 1991 President George H.W. Bush unilaterally committed the United States to destroying all chemical weapons and to renounce the right to chemical weapon retaliation. \nThe U.S. Congress has since passed legislation requiring the destruction of the entire stockpile by December 31, 2004. Official U.S. policy is to support the Chemical Weapons Convention as a means to achieve a global ban on this class of weapons and to halt their proliferation. \n\nOh and the arabs, they had palaces and cities and knew how to read, write, trade, build ships etc. while Europe and America were barbarians and were still living in caves. The arabs gave the west the modern number system and they also carried the concept of zero from India to the west. What Europe and America boasts of today started with what they got from the arabs. But with their religious fanaticism their progress stalled and they fell behind. America is powerful and advanced today but it too is witnessing a religious fundamentalist movement. And if it continues on this path then the only thing separating America from its dark days is time.\nCivilizations rise and fall.
93105
If ever the US would fall, it would be by NO means of other country... I mean, take for example they had a war with other country, but they won't lose. No other country can bring them down... it will only be among them and it depends on them whatever they want to happen. I guess, the second sentence states that would it still be possible that the US will fall or is it alrady breaking down?! The new generation in that country is being quite a bit-off-course and people are too much liberated.
147633
I would answer you by a similar answer; can anyone beside me see why USA and Israel give themselves the whole right to posses nuclear weapons and prevent others from have them? And just a small reminder; USA is the unique nation over the whole history which has used the nuclear weapons and it has committed the biggest and most aggressive genocide  against hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki of Japan at the end of World War II (in spite of the fact that Japan had announced its surrendering before USA committed its crime which give no justified moral excuses). It was only the desire of showing off, arrogance and terrorizing other nations.
307674
No more countries should be able to join the nuclear club - that is unfair, but necessary and everyone seems to agree with this.  So this situation needs wonderful foreign policy, understanding, and skill to resolve peacefully.  Unfortunately, we do not have a real statesman in the White House right now and it is going to hurt us.  The Bush administration only knows how to throw rocks at things to see if they respond.  They know no other approach and cannot fathom how governments existed without militaries and force.