Why are some countries aloud to have nuclear weapons and why other ones are not…?
Is it maybe because as us Americans have absolute power we can decide which countries are “cool” and which are not ? Is it maybe because we think we have the absolute truth and don’t want anybody that thinks different to have such power?
USA is the country in the world that has more nukes, why do we have such right? Why do we freak out if N Korea produces one ? Why we didn’t go crazy when Pakistan and India got theirs ?.. please help me here.
aloud? 
The answer to your question is that America is ethnocentric.
It’s the same reason that some people don’t like libertarianism. The argument goes basically like this: I can think clearly but no one else can.
Only morons don’t like libertarianism.
Now you’re not thinking clearly…
sorry… you are right I meant “allowed”… english is my third lenguage!!
Hey! I don’t like libertarianism.
There was a poem, actually just a little bit of doggerel, by Hilaire Belloc. Commenting on the revolt in the Sudan, he said:
“Whatever happens, we have got
the Maxim gun, and they have not.”
Atomic bombs are powerful, and you don’t want your enemies to have them, if you can help it.
America does not have absolute power, and we are not the sole decider in these issues. In the case of North Korea, the reason (IMHO) we don’t want them to create nuclear weapons is because they will use them-not because we have absolute “truth”.
I think that Russia has the most nukes, I could be wrong though-with the demise of the communist regime. I think “we” go crazy whenever anyone gets nuclear weapons; they are a hugely powerful weapon that can turn a city into a collection of melted shit. We freaked when Russia stole the knowledge from us, and IIRC we freaked when India and Pakistan threaten each other with them.
I dont know, if I had my way the US wouldnt be allowed to have nukes. Well I guess if I had my way all nuclear weapons would evaporate, make that all weapons, and I would live with 20 cheerleaders who took care of me…
I think your question boils down to: “Why isn’t there moral equivalence among all nations.” Phrased like that, the answer is fairly obvious.
Oh my God, you are crazy! What’s with this sudden wave of crazy people, I mean for Godsake, only 20 ?
All weapons?
So, nobody or no country would have:
Knives
Saws
Arrows
Batons
Guns
Bats
Golf Clubs
Whips
Chains
Scissors
Cars…
Okay, if it stops at “real” weapons, then I’m all for it! :rolleyes:
But I want 20 cheerleaders!
You begin with false premises. The only nation in the world that is not allowed to have nuclear weapons is Iraq, which lost that right as a result of its losing war with the United Nations in 1991.
A large number of other nations have voluntarily given up the right to have nukes by signing the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. However, the Non-Proliferation Treaty does not contain enforcement mechanisms dealing with the withdrawal of a nation from the treaty, so any nation may reacquire the right to build nukes simply by withdrawing from the treaty.
Now, there is a difference between a nation having a right and whether the US would like that nation to exercise that right. In North Korea’s case, we would not like it to have them because, among other reasons, the United Nations is still in a state of war with the regime (the Korean War only having been ended by a cease-fire), we are closely allied with South Korea, which N. Korea has threatened repeatedly in the past, we have 37,000 troops in South Korea, and we (along with S. Korea, Japan and the EU) paid North Korea a hell of a lot of money on the condition that it stop building nukes.
Sua
I think SuaSponte covered the main points of rebuttal. Re: the US “freaking out” over North Korea, my definition of freaking out would be to threaten immediate war if North Korea carried out its plans. AFAIK, such a direct threat hasn’t been made.
I’ll only add that the OP seems to imply that he or she thinks the current regime in North Korea SHOULD have nuclear weapons. If so, perhaps the OP would like to present his or her case.
First of all, NK had signed the NNPT that states something to the effect that all countries who do not have nukes would not try to get them. And those that do have them would not try to get more , but reduce their numbers. Also it required UN inspectors to be able to monitor all nuclear instilations I beleive. Or maybe its just Nuclear arsenal. i can’t find a link ATM.
You see, pretty much the whole world wants to limit nuclear weapons proliferation. Not just the ethnocentric, imperialistic US.
Also NK is defined as a rougue state by most western, and other, countries. Wich in definition is perceived irrationality of decision making, its ability to jeopardize international order, state sponsorship of terrorism, propensity for unilateral action, and otherwise untrustworthy and hostile in aggression. And whether you or I agree with it, it is an official view by these countries and international discourse and policy making is defined by the classification.
If you are accusing the US of effecting policy in regards to it’s own self interst, then guilty as charged. It is funny that you would accuse the US of thinking of it’s safety, and what they regard as dangerous, While at the same time insinuating that other countries have every right to do what they think is best. Other nations self interests do not always coincide with each other. That is where pressure and persuasion comes into the picture. And the facts are that the US has more pressure and better forms of persuasion than most. That is not something to be ashamed of.
India and Pakistan did not sign the NNPT, but we still condemned both countries, and tried to persuade them wagainst developing Nws by offering aid and sanctions, just like NK. As a matter of fact there are still sanctions against both countries because of their nukes IIRC.
In this equality of nations, some are just more equal.
Just to lend an old answer from USSR-times.
Henry
A “rougue” state? Is that a nation that threatens to attack its neighbors while wearing make-up? 
Jeff
joukes about othours dialougue isn’ut resourcful nour colourful thaunk you.
This is like asking why Hitler should have been prevented from getting the bomb, even before he went to war.
The reason is because we’re better than they are. Better in the sense that countries like the USA, Britain, France etc. are civilized western democracies and appreciate the intrinsic value of human life.
Hell, even the former Soviet Union was responsible enough to have not ever used its nukes. But basically only because they knew we wouldn’t have let them getaway with it.
However, countries like Iraq and North Korea are a different matter. They are brutal and absolute military dictatorships. And both governments think nothing of sacrificing the lives of thousands of their own people, so it is quite obvious they would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons offensively on anyone.
In fact, their cultures have a hard time understanding what stops the US from just nuking everyone and ruling the whole world. That’s what they’d do. They still accept the idea of despotism. If you’re more powerful and you want something, you smash the other guy over the head and take it.
Plus, with muslim cultures throw in a bit of religious hatred & zeal and with asian cultures a bit of fanatical devotion & blind obedience, and you’ve got a guaranteed recipe for a nuclear attack on the US and its allies.
Ok, all you PC sissies call me a racist for that last bit…