Why nuclear weapon-rich countries opposing other countries to get nuclear weapon?
404607
I think it's intuitive that more countries with nukes is something that should be discouraged by the world community, but the countries that already have them don’t want to get rid of them unless its mutual as with Russia and the US over the past decade.  I also think it’s a matter of the stability of the countries that now may obtain nuclear weapons.  Russia and China are downright stable compared to Iran and N Korea.
38699
A country like Iran that has pursued nuclear weapons and long-range rockets and has vowed to destroy a Democracy (Israel) should not be trusted, noteven with materials that could be used to further their nefarious aims.  Would they even hesitate to supply such weapons to terriorists?  Do you want to take that chance?  Just having nuclear WMD would allow them to intimidate their neighbors.  No one would dare try to stop them from equipping even more suicide bombers or organizing the powers on earth that have no regard for innocent human life, including yours.
353792
Following the Cold War, I believe many Americans were afraid of nuclear threat. As a result, U.S. would sign the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) which would conform the countires into a military alliance if any one of them were threatened.\n\nI don't know if this also includes the 'arms race,' in which U.S. would compete with the Soviets to build the H-Bomb (organzied in the secret Manhatten Project) while the Soviets were attempting to build their first Atomic Bomb.
944698
If they do have nuclear weapons the answer is North Korea. They seem the most willing to use them.
601187
Much different.Russia lags behind only the U.S. in nuclear weapons.
330604
A couple of issues with your question.\n\nThe US is no longer testing nuclear weapons, and production is limited to what is required to replace older systems that are obsolete (read the SALT-II treaty).\n\nNext, of the countries that currently have nuclear weapons I would say the ones most likely to use them are Pakistan (which would lead to its anihilation) and Russia, out of desperation and impotence.  The chances of the US using nuclear weapons is fantastically small.\n\nThe US, and the UN for that matter (if you come up out of your hate america haze long enough you would realize that France, Germany and the UN are the ones leading the charge against Iran) don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons because it seems very likely that they will use them on their neighbors.\n\nBesides, would you give a loaded pistol to a three year old and expect no one to get hurt?  Same idea with Iran.
284278
It's really tough to answer that question.  You'll have chose where you get your answers from, Washington DC, media or here on ASK.  I can tell you the reason why the US is staring at Iran really hard is because they have THREATEN (Quendan, pay attention here) the use of Nuclear weapons.  I don't know about you but if I here someone wants to destroy my house just because they think they can, I will take action to prevent them.  Again Iran has threaten the use of Nukes, the last time I heard through the MEDIA is that we have weapons inspectors over there.  What does that mean for you and me?  Only time will tell.\nAbout America and Russia having nukes, you betcha.  Why?  For protection only.  The US has only used nukes (or atomic in this case) on Japan and that was it.  Quendan has one good statement, America and Russia only have a few hundred of nukes between the two.  That's because of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty or the reduction of nukes.  This is coming from someone that use to work with "them".
18062
Yes, and it's actually really digusting, the amount of nuclear explosives we have. What I don't understand is why is the U.S. trying to keep other countries from having them, yet it is perfectly alright for us to have them claiming "protection"?
244806
If that were the case does it give India, Pakistan, Isreal and all the other nuclear powers the right to attack us because we have nuclear weapons - I think not.\n\nAnd who are we to dictate to other countries whether they should have nuclear weapons or not.  We expect the world to accept that it's OK for us to have weapons but then have the hypocricy to condemn other countries who acquire or want to acquire them.\n\nTo my mind it would be much better if no-one had them.
1018242
Ok folks, who can hit the United States with a nuclear missile? China , no way! Russia, maybe but I doubt it. You know we were raised with a fear installed within us to try and make us  believe that if America didn't have the strongest, bigest military force and if we didn't stockpile more nuclear weapons, that we would be stupid cowards, with suicidal tendencies, because surely every rogue country on the planet would attack us and try and take everything we have. Our Democracy and freedom being the prize!I realize that we have all been sedated by the powers rhat be and that clear unadulterated thought is hard to come by within our minds these days, but try to focus on this question for a second or two. if You and I were from a poor middeleastern counrty that had corrupt government  like we all do but no watchdogs within to circumvent this attrosity ,so your country just struggled along, do you think your little piece of shit country would sit around and try to  figure out ways to overthrow the Big Guy, namely the United States, well maybe a little bit but remember you don't have shit for nukes and you couldn't fly one overhere let alone hit anything! so the answer has got to be no way, yes you will be forever envious of the Americans and you may fantasize about living here and being a rich person with everything that goes with it, but there's no way you are going to help bring on your own demise the human mind does'nt go there, and either will your's. So stop with the paranoia and all your little insecurities and be assured that no country other than this country, The most powerful country of all times) is planning to take us out; But one US! Sorry Spellcheck is having problems!
1074806
Well ,the question is, why shouldnt they have these weapons? The security council nations, ie You guys, Us (Britain), France, China and Russia all have high-payload nuclear weapony in stockpiles..Id say were more of a danger to world peace, wouldnt you?\n Besides, north Korea is a tinpot state, its a wreck and everyone knows it, except the media, who love to play this kind of thing up. Its almost as stupid as believing iraq could actually threaten us *laughs* States like Iran and N.Korea will never use nuclear weapons in anger, as this would almost definatly result in a nuclear response from the Security nations. Basically, we dont need to go to war with them, they wont use them and theyll probably disintergrate as a nation soon anyways..
448746
I believe it is all about jealousy. I mean, look how much the west has as compared to the Arab States. If it were not for their oil, those countries would not have much more to offer. However, like the guy above said, trap a rat in the corner and it will defend itself. However,the rat is going up against the king of the jungle, a den of lions. It does not take much to see that they too strive to have power. But they wouldnt know how to control their power so thats the reason they cannot have nuclear arms. As far as Russia, they are in it for the money...what else. For the same reason they did not authorize the US invading Iraq, they were purchasing lot of oil from Iraq and selling it to the US. Its all politics but for Iran, they are out of their league.
592707
Of course there is no ight or wrong answer to this question, but I don't think that evaluation is right. Particularly in this nuclear imbalanced world created by NNPT, a country like USA that holds atomic weapons can easily defeat another country that does not have nuclear weapons (though I can't think of any country militarily strong enough that USA won't attack without nuclear weapons yet has no nuclear weapon itself). The presence of nuclear weapons can also radically affect the course of war between two nuclear countries. For example, France is militarily weaker than USA but USA may well think twice before attacking France because just before falling a desparate government may well decide to fire off those warheads.
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?
489089
Its basically a deterrant to keep other nations from using them.  So say for example, Iran nukes Israel, then the other club members would be required to obliterate all of Iran as punishment.  Even in the afghanistan mountains, the US only used conventional bombs and not nukes.
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.
532797
Because the race was all about who got it first to see who'd distroy whom first, which led to the new toy being tested in Japan back in the 40's, that's when everybody got Sh*t scared of the bomb, all countries i mean, because everybody could see what it could do.  And nations have been quietly using nuclear might to bluff their way into winning matches with other countries ever since.