Why leader countrys have the right to have nuclear wepons while others ( Iran , N.Korea ) dont ?
112457
Some leaders don't care about the opinions of their own people or the worlds. Those people would be more inclined to use said bombs then others. Not being elected don't help either. Of course I am not talking about the U.S. That don't count.
431062
i think the whole talk of "rights" is ridiculous, as iran is now showing.  proliferation of nuclear material should be curtailed, and talking about a nation's right to have nuclear weapons or power is silly.  where does the right come from?  what could it be based on?  does that mean that nations without nuclear technology, but who meet the qualifications for having the "right" to them should be aided in their nuclear research?  does china have the "right" to its nuclear technology?  its humans rights records are very poor, they have invaded their neighbors before (tibet), have committed genocide (tibet), and are likely to go to war again in the future.  how could they have a "right" to nuclear technology, then?  If they do have a right to nuclear technology, then the standards for having the right must be so low as to be irrelevant.  If they do not have the right, what will anybody do about it?  Again, the concept of rights to nuclear weapons (or power) are irrelevant.  It seems that the only guarantee of a right to nuclear technology is if the nation has already developed it and is strong enough to defend itself.  This makes a mockery of the very concept of rights.\n\nPeople need to get over the idea of "rights."  We should focus on doing what will likely lead to be best outcome, regardless of imaginary "rights."  And this means opposing any more nations obtaining nuclear weapons or the technology to make such weapons.
583432
Well of COURSE they do have the right!! Not only for nuclear power either - literally speaking they are entitled to have nuclear weapons to protect themselves from Bush & Israel. But they are not TRYING to build weapons! They want power! And who the hell do Bush & Blair etc. think they are, to try and DENY an independent country of it's rights!???!\n\nIran has done nothing to warrant this hostility, except to develop ... as all countries do! Even America is constantly trying to develop! Why should Bush have the right to hold back the rest of the world? Arrogance!! That's what it is!\n\nBush; "We are scared of you, and because of that we will destroy you - even though you haven't actually DONE anything wrong! We're scared that maybe one day you might break our toys, or refuse to sell us oil ... so we'll bloody well break you down so that we can CONTROL you!!!"\nAhmadinejad; "For pity's sake man! We aren't trying to harm anyone ... can't you SEE that? Why do you insist on behaving like a spoilt child? What makes you think that you have the RIGHT to order us around? Just because you're so deluded that you think God speaks to you!!!"
532696
It should not be allowed nuclear capabilities, and we should all endever to prevent this occurance, because it is not within the intrests of the Western world. I recognise the arguement that Iran is as unstable or backward as the Western press portray it to be, however a neuclear Iranian would enable it to dictate policy in the region to a much larger degree, look at North Korea for example. The West needs a weaker Iran to exploit its natural resources, we should not be apologetic about this fact, we should however be careful how we go about it. As previous events have shown, badly planned interferance is far worse than isolationism.
1029826
You'd have to ask North Korea and Iran - they're the only countries that seem to like to threaten the world. The rest of the countries have matured beyond that and have been dismantling their arsenals for a decade.
673053
Iran has right to have nuclear peaceful power stations and research on atomic energy.\n\nThe world has some facilities to achieve out facts, such as "United Nation" and "International Atomic Energy Agancy".\nSo Iran lets them to do a lot of researches about its ability and goals.\n"IAEA" inspectors have done a lot of inspects in all of places where they wants, even military stations.\n\n> Iran is one of "IAEA" members for a long time (about 30 years) and always observe all of international rules, So Iran has certain right to do research on atomic technology and make some nuclear power stations depend on "IAEA" rules for research and produce electricity.\n\n>> Iran can't trust to other countries for giving it nuclear fuels. In the past they didn't faithful in their promise and agreements. North Korea is an example. They promise them to give them light-water power station and fuel but they (US and Western countries) didn't do it. Thus Iran can't trust to unfaithful countries.\n\n>>> In the other hand, Israel has more than 250 nukes and this country is a dangerous threating for its neighbours continuously.\nIsrael isn't one of members of "IAEA" and inspectors can't inspect Israel.\n--> Remember "Dimona" and that technician "Vanono", It is just one of secret places which Israel has.\n\nActually, Israel and US are big threats for all of independent countries on the whole of world.
507070
You should say that the USA has WMD, why should not anybody else?\n\nThink about it. The USA is the only country to have used nuclear weapons. How can we trust them not to use them again? We can't. Other countries have the rights to protect themselves against the USA's nuclear attacks.
92919
If its peaceful, then they have the right, if it is for weapons, why can the US have it and not Iran? AND DON'T GIVE ME THE WHOLE YOU CAN'T TRUST THEM BS!!
366650
Look the thing that binds nuclear disarmament internationally is the Non-proliferation Treaty.  It's an agreement that allows for countries (even Iran) to engage in peaceful nuclear research for the purposes of nuclear power among other things.  It is also widely violated by Israel and by India (which was basically told in an agreement with the US that it could build as many nukes as it wanted).  \n\nNow, I'll give you the no country has the right to a nuke, but then the question goes to any nation seeking the bomb, "By what right can the US decide that India can build nukes but we cannot?"  And I'm not necessarily talking about Iran here.  Pakistan is pissed that India gets access to US nuclear technology but IT DOESN'T.  \n\nAnother problem is that once a country gets the bomb, like say North Korea, the US stops its Sabre rattling.  Iraq had to be invaded because Saddam could have been working on the bomb say the talking heads.  Well North Korea (hardly an improvement IMHO) did get the bomb and what happened?  Talks.  That sends a strong message to many a regime unfriendly to the US I think.  \n\nAs for if China adds another nuke, well, you really don't understand much about China's nuclear program.  They don't really have many nukes and have no real second strike capability, but if they were to turn their burgeoning economy and pour it into their nuclear inventory, and developed a second strike capability, they would be a much more serious threat to the US.
342284
Iran is a member of the United Nations and a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and is not suppose to be developing nuclear weapons.  Although Iran has been stating that they only want peace use of atomic energy, their position is highly suspect, if for no other reason than the fact that Russia offered to provide the atomic fuel they needed for such peaceful use and Iran turned that offer down.  \n\nBeyond that reality, no nation with nuclear weapons wants such weapons to spread to other countries.  This is particularly true of countries that have unstable and radical governments.  It isn’t a matter of a country’s right to tell them they can’t have such weapons, but a matter of realistic defense.
668472
The countries in question, Iran, NK, (not necessarily India) have been pretty vocal about what they'd do with nukes.  It's sort of like how if you're parents smoke and they tell you not to smoke when you're in high school, and you're like, "Yo, you smoke."  \n\nBut there's a difference between parents and teens, just like there are differences now between those who have and don't have nukes-- the biggest of which includes a little discretion and little less ambition to come up.  Double standards can't be criticized-- it's the way $h!t is.  There are no black and white scenarios, especially when discussing politics.  If there's black and white, that means there's grey in between, and some motherf--ker is always gonna exploit that $h!t while the rest of us try to maintain integrity by not participating in double standards, you know?\n\nI'm claiming a single standard is impractical.  A Smith & Wesson beats four aces-- and we're holding that $h!t now.
999817
it is a threat to internional security for ANY ONE to have nukes .\niran ,the usa ,any one that has them is a threat to the world
481813
Why should the US be the only ones to have nukes in the first place?  Our president wants to claim everyine else is out to use them, when the fact of the matter is that our country is the only one in the world to have actually used them in a war situation.  In my eyes, I see our world as one.  And if one country on the map is allowed to have nukes to defend themselves, then so should everyone else.  We are just another country.  Just another land mass on the map.  Yes, we have more than others, but we also are more arrogant.  I can vouch for that, since I can be pretty stuck up at times.
1163388
Sure.As long as other countries have the right to nuclear energy,so should Iran.If the Iranian nuclear program is a threaten then so is USA's program and of all the other countries who use nuclear energy.
1113064
At the moment, we know North Korea has nukes and so far as we know, Iran doesn't (although I can't shake the feeling that they may have nabbed some of the ones that were shipped out of Iraq.) Therefore, I'd say North Korea is presently a bigger threat, although the fundamentalist regime and mentality of many Iranians probably makes them the more dangerous long-term.
452696
Iran has as much right to Nuclear Weapons as any other country which already has. \nIf Iran choses to ingnore the United Nations, why not? USA and England regularly ingnore the UN when they want to attack Yugoslavia, Afganistan, Iraq... but they leave the UN to clean up the mess.\nAs westerners we have no right to criticise people because they see or think differently.\nHowever, many Iranians are brainwashed into hating the west, but here is the final question.. Isn't this what the US and britain is trying to do with all the terrorist stuff?? Where are all the terrorist attacks happening in the west??? We're certainly giving up a lot of freedom because of this threat.
861092
No, it means that both of those countries that you mentioned are in CLEAR AND BLATANT violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.\nThe US is not in violation of it.  Neither are the other nuclear-armed countries who agreed to the treaty.\nNorth Korea and Iran would have to have completely peaceful governments in order to develop nuclear technology.  They do not, therefore they SHOULD NOT develop anything nuclear.