Perhaps this question is a bit naive…but why is it considered okay for the US, Israel, Russia and a few others to have nuclear weapons…but not okay for other countries to have them?
What rationale does the world at large use to explain the unleveled playing field other than "We had it first…you are not allowed to develop nuclear weapons?
The same reason that the military gets to have Ak-47’s while regular citizens don’t. We can trust the military to use them appropriately, but if everyone has them, it makes the world far, far more dangerous.
Many countries (Iran, N. Korea) are also signitories to the nuclear non-poliferation treaty in which they’ve agreed not to seek nuclear weapons.
Also, I don’t think that anyone was thrilled when Israel, Pakistan or India developed nukes, so it’s not really correct to say that it’s O.K. for them to have them so much as there isn’t much we can do about it.
We’ve recently done this thread, here and another more on-point one that I can’t coax the search engine into coughing up.
First, as an exercise, can you make a list of the countries in the world that * you’d * like to have nuclear weapons that don’t currently have them? Ideally, they should have a stable, rational regime, no inclination to pass the weapons on to terrorists, and no smoldering irrational hatreds against their neighbors that would be likely to induce them to use them without dire provocation. Two of the countries that are either just joining or about to join the nuclear club are Iran and North Korea. How well do they fit the above criteria?
It’s not OK for us that they get nuclear weapons for pretty much the same reason that it wouldn’t be OK for you if your downstairs crack-smoking alcoholic skinhead neighbors went out and purchased a boatload of assault weapons and grenade launchers. And even if the hypothetical downstairs neighbors were well-behaved church-going citizens, you’d still be a bit uneasy.
It would be nice if WE didnt’ have them, but we do. Letting every half-mad Third World dictator in the world get his hands on them in the name of “fairness” is just plain stupid.
I agree with EvilCaptor. I don’t think anyone should have them.
In my opinion:
States that, in an ideal world, should have nuclear arsenals:
None.
Results of only the high and mighty (& mostly Western) “great powers” having nukes: Domination of “lesser” peoples; asymmetrical warfare; so-called “terrorism” as a tool reserved by the nukeless states.
States that should be allowed to develop nukes if the USA (which should know better) still has them:
Any state which is clearly a constitutional state, & not just one guy playing dictator. This goes to issues of stability & what might be called legitimacy. So under current regimes, Iran is okay, but not N. Korea, Turkmenistan, nor Equatorial Guinea. (Heh. Equatorial Guinea. Can you imagine?) Derive from this that a better restriction is constitutional states that are unlikely to hand them out to private individuals.
(Where does Pakistan fall in this? Well, that’s a special case. It may not be the most stable state, & is currently under military dictatorship, but Pakistan & India have to both be armed with nukes to keep the peace. MAD, etc.)
Pragmatically, states which are going to have to give up their nukes if we expect Iran to give up theirs:
Israel, the USA, maybe India & China.
So, unless & until the USA unilaterally & unconditionally disarms, I support the Iranian nuclear program (albeit not without reservations).
Furthermore, the current USA President has never asked Iran to give up nuclear ambitions, only “nucular” weapons, whatever those are. So Iran could just claim compliance right now. :d&r:
The United States takes the position that certain other countries should not have nuclear weapons because it runs counter to the interests of the United States. It is not the responsibility of the United States to make the world “fair” or “just” except as such conditions promote the welfare of the United States. Until about 20 years ago, this would not even bear mentioning, much less debating.
As with all negotiations, it’s smart to characterize your own proposal as being better for the other guy, too. But that doesn’t mean you really want what’s best for him. I would guess that every Iranian down to the lowliest sheepherder realizes this.
With every country that has nuclear weapons, the world becomes at least a bit more dangerous. And it becomes more dangerous in proportion to the probability that that country will actually use its nukes.
Hyperelastic has a good point, but even aside from that, I feel better about the USA having nukes than I do about certain other countries, because we’re politically stable and because I don’t believe we would be likely to use them, for various reasons including the fact that we’ve had and not used them since 1945.
[Devil’s Advocate]
In determining who should have nuclear weapons, I ask -
All contexting aside:
Which country has used nuclear weapons on an enemy?
Which country has invaded 2 other countries in the last 5 years?
[/Devil’s Advocate]
In a way ‘we’ don’t even want them, we have worked to eliminate our own stockpiles and Russias stockpiles for quite a while. The goal is to have as few nuclear weapons on earth from what I can tell. But all the countries that have them want to keep them except S. Africa.
The US hasn’t done nearly as much as we should or could to limit our nuclear arsenal. Boondoggles like Star Wars, and proposed expansions like nuclear bunker-busters, are not at all helpful.
Having said that, our nation isn’t quite so under the influence of madmen or religious fanatics that we’re likely to use thermonuclear warheads preemptively, or engage in other such patently egregious crimes involving nuclear devices meant to kill massive numbers of civilians. I don’t think the same can be said of some extremists. Limiting proliferation and securing extant nuclear stockpiles in places like Russia is the best way to avoid a weapon getting into the hands of those who would not hesitate to use it. The Cold War taught us deterrents do actually work; but the MAD principle is irrelevant in some conflicts, and it’s in nearly everyone’s best interest to make sure nuclear weapons don’t enter into them.
North Korea’s only be involved in one invasion in the last fifty years, do you think, even playing Devil’s Advocate that makes them less likely to use nuclear weapons than the United States?
I don’t believe you can remove these statements from their context.
In order to use nukes against an enemy, we must possess them. Since we possess them, whether we should or not becomes a moot point.
Martin Hyde has already pointed out the flaw in the reasoning of your second point.
Basically, the argument for limiting nuclear proliferation is that the weapons are so dangerous, the fewer countries that possess them, the better. Once a country develops them, they tend not to want to give them up and there really isn’t any way to force them.
Devils Devils Advocate:
Which country that has had a nuclear weapon used against it has grown from a fascist monarchy into a democracy that is now a leader in the world market?
Which 2 socially oppressed countries that have been invaded in the last 5 years have changed to a democratically elected government?
What makes the ownership of nuclear weapons a point of contention is the probability of their indiscriminate use. WWII was a world conquest war and it can be argued that the use of nuclear weapons prevented more deaths than it took. It should also be noted that these were small nukes in comparison to today’s weapons and were comparable in damage to a successful bombing raid. Dresden Germany was leveled with the same devastating force of a nuclear weapon and with less cause for attack (for military purposes).
Japan was the aggressor in the war, not a victim. If the Axis countries had successfully completed their nuclear program first then the outcome would have been quit different. Germany and Japan were changed (through war) from world conquest dictatorships to democratically run world powers. The victors in the war brought about these changes.
I wished I shared the belief of some posters that the uS can be ‘trusted’ not to use nuclear weapons in the future. The planned development of tactical and battlefield nukes tends to suggest otherwise however (these are not deterents, they are weapons designed for use). And of course, WMDs in the form of uranium-tipped weapons have been used in recent conflicts by the US and UK.
The 5 nuclear powers at the time the NPT was signed have made no moves at all towards fulfilling their own obligations under that treaty (full disarmament at the earliest possible time), it’s unrealistic decades later to expect non-nuclear states to be bound by it.
Any argument you make concerning nuclear weapons is going to lack credibility if conflate the use of depleted uranium tipped weapons with the use of atomic bombs. There still isn’t much evidence that DU represents a substantial radiological health risk (the heavy metal itself is probably more toxic). Calling them a WMD dilutes that term to a ludicrous degree.
I certainly wasn’t equating the use if DU weapons with the use of nuclear weapons. However the willingness of the leaders of these countries to condemn others for (alleged) possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction, while at the same time using weapons that clearly fall under that category. I seriously doubt that you can frame a definition of a Weapon of Mass Destruction that encompases a shell containing anthrax but excludes a DU tipped shell.
There is a growing body of cirumstantial evidence. Areas where the weapons have been used (including Iraq, Afghanistan and Bosnia) have seen above average instances of cancers, etc. For example, see here
Also here
A chemical, biological, or radiological weapon with the potential to kill or injure a large amount of people spread over a significant area.
What’s wrong with that?
Either covers both or neither, depending on your definition of a large amount of people and a significant area. Probably neither.