Despite being the only nation to use an atomic weapon , why US thinks other nations can't keep nukes ?
475081
Pentagon top brass like to think they control human destiny, only space for one cowboy in this town.\n Just a little ego buster when someone else competes against your decisive power!
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.
639892
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.
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.
548098
No, USA just tries to ensure THEY are the only ones with Neuclear Weapons.
48208
becausev it would take away from the U,s, status as the only super power . the us wouldnt be the baddest kid on the block if other countries also had these kinds of weapons .
638207
None.\n\nThe five Nuclear Powers.\n\nThe World should stop at 5 Nuclear Powers.\n\nThe nukes may never go away.\n\nBut it helps to know there has not been a single nuclear attack against any country since Nagasaki 1945. That is more than 60 years ago.It would be safe to keep it that way.\n\nCan anyone guarantee the same if other countries(ANY) start developing nuclear weapons indiscriminately?
551772
yes, to date America is the only country to drop nukes on civilian populations ,we also destroy cultures that have never set foot in this country and have never killed any of our people outside of their boarders (Iraq)
306260
i think they do. considering I'm from around there. look, if the U.S says that they shouldn't get Nuclear Bombs,that is being wrong because you are denying somebody something that you already have, and that's just....whatever.
705286
Look we're the only superpower. We have nukes as a deterrent. Would we use them? Sure if we needed to, but that would be a last resort. As to Israel, they are our ally and Thus we let them keep nukes as a deterrent. It is one way for Ismael to ensure not being over run by its enemies in the middle east. Why can't Iran have nukes? North Korea? Because we said so that's why. (Please refer to first sentence.)
458362
US And UK should leave Iran alone! So what if they have nuclear weapons. India, Russia and Isreal have them so why not Iran? Those three countries are just as much a threat as Iran is. Besides what are the americans and UK afraid of? I mean they have the biggest number of nuclear and atomic weapons in the world anyway.
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.
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.
414768
Yes, eventually (maybe not 50 years, but sometime not so far off), the US will have claimed that no country will be able to be trusted with nuclear weapons, and the US will bomb and take over every country. 50 years after that, people will realize that the true irony was that, in all of history, the US was the only country to use nuclear weapons.
322510
i dont think that the US is every gonna make the mistake of nuking anyone country unless and until it is unavoidable because they have learnt their lessons from hiroshima and nagasaki.\n\nand moreover they understand that they cant just go about preaching everyone to be responsible with nukes while they themselves do what they feel like.
178530
From the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, it sounds like they need alot of upgrading.  They don't have as many nukes targeted on the USA as i had thought, although one would be enough.
457093
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.