Why The Nuclear Countries Opposed Other To Get It? Political Morality

[kasm 0]

Before I start I am with eliminating nuclear weapons from all.Why the nuclear Countries oppose others to get the same. It was bitter to eliminate their threat before prohibiting other?Why they make noise about Iran and North Korea?Why they don't mention anything about themselves or Israel?They think that they are responsible and others are not. In fact who used the atomic bomb to kill hundred of thousands of innocent civilian 60 years ag?If they say that Israel under threat, I answer that Iran and North Korea under threat the strongest power of the worl that is US.What is called that who criticie others for thing he has and want be the unique to posses?

Notice from BuffaloHELP:

kasm, please refrain from using such a large font that it does not fit the posting form. And you do not need to bold all your post. Changing the font size.

Edited August 10, 2005 by BuffaloHELP (see edit history)

[wakelim 0]

The theory of the US and UK, Russia etc. is that they've already caused enough damage on other countries and that if more countries have nuclear bombs etc. then Iran, Korea and other countries would respond and we would all end up blowing each other into ablivion.I will admit that bombs were used against Iraq and other countries without any kind of real UN agreement or consultation with the country itself. That was why I was against the war myself. You're probably right to call them hypocrites.But surely we need less weapons in this world, not more. If everybody, including evreybody from USA to Iran, gave up all nuclear, atomic weapons etc. and destroyed them completely then would the world be more dangerous. You could argue that you would be under more threats from terrorists and selfish leaders who hide their weapons, but it would result in less deaths.

[alperuzi 0]

Of course we need less weapons around the world but nuclear power has two sides. It is one of the cheapest sources of energy, therefore being popular amongst developed countries for producing electricity and I think it should be continued to be used till an even cleaner source of power is found.However you can never trust a country to just use it for power, developed or not, they will in most cases begin weapons projects. Once the infrastructure is in place to produce enriched uranium then it is fairly simple to make it into a weapon.

[round 0]

my god all this crazy talk in the forms lately! i would rather no one had these damn things. they're not a good thing, and they've proved themselves to be very very unstable for like ever now. I would ask why would anyone want to waste that kind of money on such programs. They could move ahead and spend much more money one even more dangerous weapons.
http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

[dontmaimyourself 0]

Well I am with you Kasm, on the eliminating nuclear weapons from all, and I think you have a very valid point that certain countries, oppose other 'less developed' countries manufacturing nuclear weapons because they think they are more responsible, when in fact said supposedly responsible country is the only one to have ever used nuclear weapons in combat, I mean thats just rediculous. (I know that paragraph probably makes little sense). Anyway, if all nuclear weapons cannot be banned, although there is no real reason for this, I think the next best way to avoid a nuclear conflict is to give everyone nuclear weapons, that may sound crazy, but would you seriously launch a nuclear attack on another county knowing that they could launch a counter attack on you before your nuclear strike even got close, it worked during the cold war anyway.I am all in favour of nuclear power, as previously stated it is clean, affordable and capable of creating massive quantities of energy. however for it to be truely safe you have to ensure that the nuclear waste is disposed of in a safe manner, I mean you cant just chuck it in big hole and forget about it. that is not to say that the countries begining ann nuclear power programme are going to dispose of the waste in an unsafe fashion, in fact it is equally possible for this to happen in so called responsible countries.Any way a quick summary:Nuclear weapons - BadNuclear power - Good

[canpolitics 0]

Everyone knows the US will not launch a nuclear strike without being fired upon first, and this is the case with almost every current nuclear power. The theory is though, that N. Korea and Iran may not have such restraint, N. Korea may just launch a nuke at the US without warning or provocation, same with Iran. It's not quite hypocracy, but it is close. No one should ever use a nuke, and the fact is no country wants to, but then again alot of countries have nukes and some are just crazy enough to try to use them... I can understand countries wanting to defend themselves.The ONLY way to stop further production of nukes is to get rid of all nukes at once, or develop a 100% effective defence against nukes. Since niether are likely to happen, we have to live with the fact that there are nukes in the world, and if some nut launches just one, it could mean an all out nuclear war.As for nuclear power production plants, well they are just about the cleanest sort of power production available, and the technology has the potential to do better than it currently does. If they are built right there is zero chance of melt down (a la Chernobyl (sp?), the US style nuclear plants however were not designed that way, if there was ever a problem and the cooling tanks were drained there would be a nuclear melt down, the Canadian plants were designed so the cooling tanks speed up the process not slow it down, so that if the tanks drained the nuclear reaction stops entirely. Of course the problem with the Canadian designed plants is that the left over materials are near perfect weapons grade plutonium, so it is easy to start up a weapons program with the Canadian style nuclear power plant, since the byproduct is one of the necessary ingreadients to making a bomb. Nuclear power plants should be researched intensly, after all it is a relatively new method of generating electricity (compared to hydro, and coal burning), and as the technology develops we could get even better at producing electricity, with even less radioctive waste.

[brandice 0]

It's a bit of a neverending loop. It's like watching little kids fight over toys. The US has to keep their weapons to try and bully (maybe not the right word) the other countries into not having them. Then those countries say, "well, you have them. Why can't we?" "Well, we have to keep ours in case someone else has them too"

[Danieluchis 0]

i just think it's because they don't want other people to be threatening ..

[T100 0]

I think the only answer to this question is that the nuclear powers don?t want others to threaten them. Their mission to stop the so-called nuclear proliferation is carried out in the name of peace, but I think this is simply hypocritical to stop others from testing it while running supercomputer simulated nuclear tests secretly. Also, many of the nuclear powers are not so-called democratic countries. Russia, China and Pakistan own their nuclear arsenals and the nukes at their hands are actually as dangerous as in Iran and N. Korea. Another thing is that nuclear fission technology is something developed 50 years ago and when developing countries like Pakistan can have their own A bombs, there is no reason why others countries who are already researching nuclear fusion technology for so long cannot build a nuclear bomb easily. So it is just a hypocritical game trying make other countries give up their nuclear plan. It is also stupid to do so.

[patelg 0]

Because they are afraid of other countries using against them.....fear. But then they dont want to get rid of it !!!!!I guess they should worry only if it goes in to bad hands.. they are also worried about that..But who knows, which are bad hands because they have already used it...against other country..

[cse-icons 0]

Agree with kasm...The ones wanting to restrict nuclear know how from other countries are nothing but pure hypocrites.They have proved that they are irresponsible enough to have used it not once but twice... how would they ever justify that...Now that many others have got the know how, they fear that threat may be unto them as they have alienated themselves to many countries including two very recently.. Dont know how they say something and do the exact opposite.. They are the ones to start the Human Right stuff when any other country uses even lesser force for their security but they themselves are no good, so they do not have the right to do the policing all over the world.. They did not even care for the view of the UN... Moreover they are the ones who are also opposing the expansion of the security council in the UN since that would dilute their position and stance. US wants everyone to toe its line in all the matters. They just fail to understand that the world has moved on since the 1945 period and the cold war...They need to accept the new world order and put other countries on an equal footing if ever they want to accept the truth...Cheers.

[kasm 0]

Everyone knows the US will not launch a nuclear strike without being fired upon first, and this is the case with almost every current nuclear power. The theory is though, that N. Korea and Iran may not have such restraint, N. Korea may just launch a nuke at the US without warning or provocation, same with Iran. It's not quite hypocracy, but it is close. No one should ever use a nuke, and the fact is no country wants to, but then again alot of countries have nukes and some are just crazy enough to try to use them...

172971[/snapback]

It is normal that everycountry will not launch a nuclear strike without being fired upon first not only for with almost every current nuclear power as you said.

 

Why we expext that that N. Korea and Iran may not have such restraint and why we jump to conclusion that N. Korea may just launch a nuke at the US without warning or provocation, same with Iran.

Their ability is limited They can not cover the test , the many heads that they must to produce and the missile to send these heads.

 

It is not mean I wanted these countries to have nuke.

 

But the question is why it is ok for me and bad to the others.

 

Believe me, it is hypocracy from neutral person out of the propaganda's influence.

 

It is better to eliminate all nuclear weapons.

Cooperate between all that the terrorist to not have it or used it in dirty bomb

[HoRuS 0]

No country should have these weapons, no civilian should have to pay for their politicians stupidiness.The fact that these weapons are produced (everywhere) can piss me off ridiculously.But my main concern is that the US and some European nations also produce them and they won't get charged nor invaded. Everyone should eliminate nuclear weapons but politics have spreaded too much hatered that nobody is willing to do this, because when the US and EU eliminates them, Iran and N.Korea will be like "now let's make them pay for they've done" and vice versa. Maybe it's time our "civilization" comes to an end, so we can make a fresh start, allthough we most likely make the same mistakes again