why not test nukes in Belgium?
340409
The Best chocolate comes from Belgium - we must protect the Chocolate.
469756
Some say we have no respect for life.  And we have nukes.  Everyone gets all worried when a new country gets nukes.  Sadly, the power a country obtains by having a nuke (USA!) makes it a desirable goal for countries.  We were just as afraid of pakistan and india having nukes, but now that they have nukes we 'work' with them.  We won't negotiate or lift sanctions with/on North Korea, but if they get nukes, we'd meet them as equals instead.  So you see, the United States created this 'everyone wants nukes' problem.  I'm sure the rest of the world isn't so sure we're completely trustworthy and capable of having them, just as we're afraid of other countries having them.  You'd think the solution would be to eliminate nukes.  Sadly, that's impossible because then some other country would get them and they'd be the super power like the USA.  And then we'd be on the short end of the stick internationally.  Basically, we'd be screwed.  It's a no-win situation.
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.
1092935
lets ask the Vietnamese.  They have lots of experience with napalm and bombs.  By the way there real good on making bouncing Betty land mines.
7214
You could build a fission device, minus the plutonium.  That'll get their attention.
40761
Is this a question, or a US bashing, I'm not sure. I often ask myself that same question though. The most honest answer might be because we can control our technology, and we have the power to control proliferation too because we see it as a danger. In general, it's probobly not a good idea for every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have Atom bombs. Do you really think nothing bad would happen if every country had enough bombs to destroy the planet? Yea that would be swell. \n\nI do have to admit there is a certain irony to the United States being so controling about nukes. We say we can't trust others to have them, but who's the ONLY county crazy enough in the history of the world to actually use one... Yep.
933833
there is no need for nukes, our main threat comes from within (al queda cells etc) for which nukes as a means of defence are completely irrelevent
58312
At that time, Nuclear usage for war is still not forbidden to use. In fact, Japan was the first real-battle-field test for atomic bomb (nuke). Even the scientist that make the nuke didn't know how devastating the nuke is. I think they regret it quite a bit to use nuke at that time (but there was no other choice to end WW2 ASAP).\nUSA drop the nuke with good intention (ending the WW2 and prevent more casualities) and Iran... I don't know.\nAnd Iran has the nuke now. So it's a whole different story.
526111
Yes, one it is enriched and now radioactive because an atom has been split. I don't know the science. Two people still need to go in and get more uranium. There is a plan to bury it all in an abandoned mine, of limestone I believe to limit the leakage. The problem with burying it all in one place and setting up a perimmiter in this dead zone is that a) it will still spread/ leak. b) shipping stuff from all over the US to one place in the southwest is very risky. Now it is all required to stay on site at each nuclear plant in the special barrels. The plan for transport is very thourough but still not a pleasing idea. If a truck crashes/ terrorist/ whatever goes wrong you will severly contaminate a large area, 50 mile radius or more. \n\nWould you like to know the plan for shipment? Well here it is. First we've got super buckets to carry it in. Big red plastic looking capsules. We ran them over with a train. Didn't break. Was funny to see a huge red thing fly through the air though. Geographers used computer mapping to find routes that were the quickest but also went through the least populated areas. The final decision was based mainly on the least population and it doesn't travel through major cities. Many objected about going through suburban areas but in some cases there just wasn't enough farm land to pass through without having to make such a detour that it would take a long time and effect more population. The highways and streets it must pass through will be closed to traffic and the trucks will be escorted by military. If your local highway is closed for somereason chances are it's passing through your neighborhood.
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
393825
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?
1041755
maybe because they prefer to built nuclear weapons for display only
796295
What anyone has to say about underground tests conducted by USA.  The same God who saved mankind from the radioactivity and damage to earth locations near and opposite side of earth to sites of blasts will save now also.  Who cared at that time for others?\nUnited States Nuclear Tests \nJuly 1945 through September 1992\nOn December 7, 1993 and June 27, 1994, the Secretary of \nEnergy declassified information related to previously unannounced nuclear weapons tests; simultaneous detonations associated with nuclear weapons tests; yields of an additional 77 atmospheric tests; and yields of 20 underground nuclear weapons tests that released radioactivity detected off the Nevada Test Site.\n\nVR
1049152
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.
1181695
NATO covers anyone who joins who gives up their nuclear power. The idea of NATO stems from Mutally Assured Destruction which is that one country will not blow up another country cos they can be blown up back, if you see what i mean. so even though nuclerness exists, no one will use it against one another because they could be targeted back. The idea is that without nuclear power you are vulnerable, so NATO will protect you in the event of nuclear warfare. The Americans disagree with Europeans cos they believe that all nuclear power should go, though they probably own their own!
389806
Several reasons:\n- The USA hasn't been building any new nuclear reactors since the Three Mile Island accident. \n- Fast breeder reactors are more complicated, more expensive than normal reactors\n- Sofar only experimental breeder reactors have been build. Look up Superphenix, for the problems the French had with one.
44111
Ok well the current JET (Joint European Torus) in Culham, Oxfordshire, UK is the biggest experimental fusion reactor in the world. Although the ITER is set to overtake it in France. There are many different fusion reactions that we can use, although the most preferable one is Deuterium-Tritium because it is one of the easist to kick-start. The big advantage with fusion is its (relative) safety and phenomenal power output. The amount of useful energy which we can obtain from nuclear fusion is staggering. It does not release pollutants into the atmosphere and although there is a radioactive by-product, this is not a problem since it is easy to deal with (unlike radioactive uranium and plutonium). The major disadvantage is the cost. The current fusion project in France almost didn't happen. Both Europe and Japan wanted it on their territory, but couldn't come to a compromise. In the end Europe insisted that they take the project alone and Japan can join in if they wish! The new reactor is in the stages of being built now but it will be some time before it is operational. And in its current state it is only in an experimental stage; it is not yet in a commercial stage, and won't be for many decades. However it is the perfect solution for producing electrical energy, with huge benefits (apart from the intial cost). See weblink for more detailed information.