Do you think the United States has the right to interfer in other countries affairs and prevent them from ownining/manufacturing nuclear weapons although the United States is the only country in the world who used nuclear weapons agains another country? Doesn't it look absurd?
120635
I do not agree with what our government is doing, but I believe that has a lot to do with the Bush administration. I've never been so disapointed int my own country before. Honestly, I am scared of our well being because of what they are doing.
24588
THE U.S. has more nukes than we know what to do with.  Any idiotic country that would openly attack us  deserves to die in a nuculear holacost for their stupidity.
116551
While it is not preferable to believe that Nuclear Weapons will ever be used again it is not a practical stand to take.  I believe that some country that really has no idea what the actual outcome of using these weapons will mean to all the people of the world.  I believe that it will be done by a renegade country such as Iran or North Korea, however North Korea seems to get what they want by having these weapons without using them.  Iran should they develop them would be a good choice to use them as hey have stated that is they're intention.  Should an attack come from any country it is almost a certainty that they will be attacked with the same type of weapons.  These actions could change the entire balance of nature and speed up our declining ecology.
310244
In my view,Iran is as entitled to develop a nuclear program just as much as anybody else,regardless of whether it's for energy or military use.Iran has a hostile neighbour that is bristling with nuclear weapons,so who can blame them if they're trying to develop an effective defence system.Israel is a country which is founded and run according to religious fundamentalism and in my view they are the most likely to be the protagonists for the next nuclear war but nobody is prepared to try to disarm them or halt any nuclear research and development.I am from the czech Republic by the way.
588170
How many countries ask for and get aid and assistance from the USA?  How many countries owe the USA for its own existence?  The USA has no right to TELL other countries what to do, BUT the USA has the right to shape another countries politics to protect itself.  Example:  A country is attempting to build Nuke weaponry.  Is it for self defense or for first strike capabilities against a country because they get into a fight over something.  If you think about it what would you do? 1) let them build a nuke and pray they don't use it.  2) Attempt to politically adjust a countries views to insure no first strike capabilities are available. 3) Wait for a country to build then launch that weapon to prove their true intentions and possibly having millions of victims and then having to defend itself with those same weapons killing more millions of Innocent people.  The intention and stability of a of a country is necessary for any plan of action or inaction, but where Nukes are concerned we ALL ARE AT RISK.  Are the Nuclear power plants for energy type power or for a power play on the world politics?.
160573
I think he has no right to attack Iran because they want to use nuclear source.  If they did want  to have nuclear energy  and weapons their country should have the right to  defend themselves if it was ISRAEL that was doing this there would be no problem and they already have nuclear weapons at Iran.The weapons part  situation should be look over and watch put I believe that we should not have the right to  say you can not  have nuclear energy or weapons.To allow to defend themselves and they may be using it nuclear for power or energy that is what they are saying they are doing.The one thing that bothers me is that Israel can do these things and the other middle east country cannot that is not fair that is saying we can do it and you cannot.
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.
504684
I say no the nuclear weapons shouldn't be banned. Look at history of the Cold War that went on for decades against the ussr & usa....they had nuclear weapons pointing at each other, did they use them.....no because they knew no one had the guts to see what would happen....destroy the planet???? The Cuban Missile Crisis, Kruschev had the opportunity to start WW3, and he backed off....These weapons are a deterrent to someone to start something, Nth Korea for instance with their 1st detonation of their own nuke....look what happened here, ussr,china,usa, virtually said in nice terms..."we're not taking any s_ _ _ from anyone who threatens us!!"......so is it inhumane to keep them or do we have them as an insurance policy from anyone from having a go!!!!!  think about it very carefully....i know i can sleep with some peace that some dumb f_ _ _ wont try anything.......if they do the enemy wont know what has hit them....so why try to start something where there will be no winners or loosers????
555296
The US has thought of itself and the world's peacekeeper or policeman since the end of World War II. Nuclear proliferation is a problem whether or not the US keeps its arms. From the end of World War II until the beginning of the Bush administration, the US actively sought to limit the spread of nuclear arms through peaceful means. Bush's willingness to use the military before diplomacy is tried is an aberration.
94229
This is all very convenient and farcical. You have the most belligerent nation on the planet, the only one that has used nukes in the past, the one that has the capability to destroy the world many times over, behaving like an empire telling nations what they should or should not do.\nThe assumption that other nations who may want nuclear weapons are "crazy" serves as the rationale for not allowing them to have them.\nIf you paint your adversary like a nut job bent on destroying Israel then everything you do or say will be justified.\nI don't particularly like Iran, a theocratic dictatorship, but one must remember that the primary goal of any dictatorship is to stay in power. Iran knows very well that if they would use nukes on anyone, let alone Israel, they would be wiped off the map.\nThe same reasoning was valid for Saddam's Iraq.\nThe last thing a fledgling dictator like him could have wanted was to create a case for being removed. That's why the alarm by the US govt that Iraq was a threat are ludicrous.\nBut people get easily drunk on propaganda.
315342
The Ultimate War... However, one cannot assume that just because a country has a nuclear warhead they will use it... They haven't yet. America was the developer of the nuclear bomb, and we are also the only ones to have used it in a war (i.e. WWII). And we used it twice... Cuba is screaming at us, "Listen to me! We have nukes!" But they won't do shit with them. Russia, the Cold War, this Long War... All just government propaganda to get you to go along with gas prices and avian bird flu. Pride is not about nationality, it's about being a human being and being alive, for that matter... Just because your country says that you have a nuclear bomb doesn't mean they're going to use it... Just save it for a rainy day, I suppose. Just so that when everybody is dropping the bomb, that one little country (we'll call it Kerplakistan) can join in and not feel left out. If every country had a nuclear weapon, though, America would be bombed first, and we have more nukes than there are countries in the world! In conclusion, it may bring world peace, world destruction, or a wholly new world order.
292618
Again, there's no point in even addressing what political issues you're implying, because it's a fact that Iran can not and will not set off a nuke here.  That would be considered an act of nuclear war, and we would retaliate with an unbelievable amount of nuclear firepower, which would squash Iran like a tiny bug under a giant boot.  You don't really want to enrage 300 million patriots backed by a trillion-dollar, apocalypse-bringing nuclear arsenal do you?
658874
Hey EBP, welcome to my fair country! Yeah lots of stuff about nuclear s*it at the moment, Tony Blair thinks it is our next big source of energy and there's a lot of arguing going on.\n\nAs for nuclear weapons I really don't know what's going on, but I don't really see why we need them- if we didn't have them, nobsoy would suddenly think, 'Hey! The UK have scrapped their nukes- let's bomb them!', because we still have friends overseas who would step in and push the button for us. \n\nNuclear weapons are a thing of the past. My opinion, for what it's worth, we all learned from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nobody will ever have the balls to push the button again as I think it really would mean the end of the world.
593148
This is a very difficult question.  Yes, every country has the right to nukes, it is only fair.  However, that being said, every country having nukes is going to lead to an apocolyptic war, so it is in the interest of the entire world to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
69164
The UN has always been a joke.  Recent US actions didnt change that they just pointed out what we all already knew.  I am visiting Bosnia and all the places that were designated UN safe zones where everybody got murdered because they were foolish enough to trust the UN.  Until the UN actually shows it is competant enough to do something (anything) the US and other countries like Iran, North Korea, China, and Russia will just keep doing whatever they want whether you agree with these actions is another question.
215007
Morally, no nation has the right to impose it's will on another. \n\nMilitarily, the US has the power to make other nations do as it pleases. \n\nThroughout history, might has usually made right. However, there are usually consequences for enforcing one's will on another nation. In time, nations/empires that impose their will usually collapse because of weakened infrastructure, citizen apathy, and internal rebellion against tyranny. \n\nI'm really confused as to why we(the human race) have not worked to build a better world. I think we're trying, but there are so many man made obstacles in our way that prevent us from building the most human friendly world. \n\nI think we'll get there, or kill ourselves in the process. Keep working to make the world a better place is all I can say.
186255
I wholeheartedly agree with you mate, I live in England and am of English parents. It seems the United States have set themselves up as the nanny of the world despite the fact they are responsible for some of the worst atrocities outside of of the 3rd Reich. Anyone that doesnt agree with their world view is seen as an enemy of america and therefore a terrorist, saying this your President seems very hardline and I can understand the objections to you having nuclear capabilities at this time.