Which countries should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

[Xanjori]

None, but no option for that? So many votes for North Korea o.O

North Korea is Best Korea

[Deleted]

Never understood why the military/politicians always bother themselves with rules and restrictions that would be fitting for a CoD game...

*Noob! You're not allowed to use nervgas.. C'mon, we agreed no armor piercing on troops!
OMG, Saudi is using nukes again! Fucking noobs, only 1 nuke per map!*

Fuckit, nukes for everyone! If they want to kill people then better do it properly.

[Thunderball]

Well, I want to explain something first. Currently there is a treaty that basically denies the fact that any country other than the official members are permitted to have nuclear weapons. First off, obviously it's in the best interest of those countries to deny any country the opportunity to have nukes, it's a HUGE strategic and political advantage. Secondly we have a big fallacy going on because India, Pakistan and Israel most likely are already in disposal of nuclear charges and the means of transportation (icbms). So, living is an ideal world we would want noone to have such weapons, but no country will give up this advantage in real world, ever. We cant obviously let everyone have them too, because of terrorism and the same reasons as listed above (advantages). So we move up to the real world situation: every country that has the technology to produce and deliver nuclear charges has an advantage, and most countries that want to have any regional/global influence will want to have that to have an advantage themselves/eliminate the advantage of others.

This is pointless =)

[Orlong]

Only the USA should have them

[Aphrel]

Well, I want to explain something first. Currently there is a treaty that basically denies the fact that any country other than the official members are permitted to have nuclear weapons. First off, obviously it's in the best interest of those countries to deny any country the opportunity to have nukes, it's a HUGE strategic and political advantage. Secondly we have a big fallacy going on because India, Pakistan and Israel most likely are already in disposal of nuclear charges and the means of transportation (icbms). So, living is an ideal world we would want noone to have such weapons, but no country will give up this advantage in real world, ever. We cant obviously let everyone have them too, because of terrorism and the same reasons as listed above (advantages). So we move up to the real world situation: every country that has the technology to produce and deliver nuclear charges has an advantage, and most countries that want to have any regional/global influence will want to have that to have an advantage themselves/eliminate the advantage of others.

This is pointless =)

you keep talking about the advantage of nukes.. care to elaborate? what are the advantage exactly?
sure its pretty usefull to have if you are being invaded to scare of the invaders, but besides that?
for a country that isnt at war with any1.. what are the advantages rly? Lets take sweden for example.. we have very little military infrastructure.. but if we were to have say a dozen nukes.. what whould we gain by that?

[Mifuyne]

None of all the fucked up countries in that list.
Or any other country for that matter.

[Sam the Wiser]

I voted for Best Korea and Iran!

[plat0nic]

None or everyone.

Every country should be allowed to have them, and then with that knowledge year by year every country should realize the rediculousness of it and make attempts to disarm. A global initiative needs to be made to stop divisive principles of religion politics and race but before that happens, its a simple game of divide and conquer.

[Deleted]

The less that get them the better, no country will use them and the more there is the more risks there is for losing one. In few decades there will be more effective weapons anyway and some countries might want those.

[Deleted]

None, but no option for that? So many votes for North Korea o.O

You dare dishonor great benevolent leader?

Long will you rue the day you made that error, from henceforth you're named amongst the imperialist dogs.

[Mnevis]

because none is a stupid unrealistic fantasy.

Unlike pretending we have a say in which countries are allowed certain weapons (I guess?) by voting in a poll on MMO-Champion?

You did not select an option to vote for. Please press back to return to the poll and choose an option before voting.

was my first impulse, but people do make a good point about deterrence having worked pretty well so far. Not that the new millennium has been rainbows and unicorns, but I really don't envy the generation (my parents) who lived in the duck and cover days.

[Frontenac]

Who should be "allowed"? Who will give the permit? America? Sorry, but they are not in a moral high ground to do so. You know, being the only power to actually having used the bomb against another country.

The truth is that it will be very difficult to forbid anyone to have the bomb if all the countries of the "nuclear family" still maintain their nuclear arsenal.

This question is far too complex to be answered in a simple poll where everyone will vote for their country and its allies to have the bomb. Afterall, it's much more comfortable to be the one holding the rifle, isn't it?

[Deleted]

The less that get them the better, no country will use them and the more there is the more risks there is for losing one. In few decades there will be more effective weapons anyway and some countries might want those.

I doubt we'll find something more powerful than thermonuclear weapons any time soon.

[cutterx2202]

Really, the "allowed" part is the problem. Each nation is sovereign only to it's own people and borders and has zero power elsewhere. We don't allow other nations to have weapons, they do what they want, when they want. We may negotiate with sanctions, etc, but in the end we can and should not stop it. The only option otherwise is invading a country that has done no harm to us.

NATO and UN may think they are the world police, but that alliance means diddly squat to nations not involved unless they're threatening war, which is absurd to do over a nation arming them self. The only real threat and power the UN and NATO have are economic sanctions.

[Deleted]

I doubt we'll find something more powerful than thermonuclear weapons any time soon.

lol u jk right? the US's gonna build the death star soon

[Mormolyce]

I wouldn't worry about Japan/South Korea/Singapore.

Japan is an honorary white country

the west and no one else (US, Europe, Australia and their allies)

We'll keep our nukes in a beat up old Ford Falcon in the outback.

Reminds me of

Australia has submarines. Wooo yeah.

Apparently we bought them second hand from the US and wound up spending way more than it's worth fixing them up, they constantly break down.

We also sell uranium to anyone who doesn't look TOO dodgy.

How can you earn nuclear weapons?

Unlocked via quest chain.

[Shakadam]

Best option: Give every single one to the UN. Since everyone can veto eachother indefinately, the nukes could never be used for any conflict BUT they would still be available if some serious shit hit the fan (alien invasion?). Everybody wins.

Other than that, the less nukes the better so I guess the current non-proliferation treaties are the best of the other options.

[Tojara]

Nobody should have them.

If I had to choose one, it would be Canada though. We apologize so much that the chances of us using them is 0%.

[checking facts]

all or none.

[icausewipes]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki disagrees with anyone saying America.


I vote none.