Which countries should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

[Thalian]

The total abolishment of the bomb is near impossible to uphold for the time being, so none is not an option.

By being allowed to have nukes, I mean be able to keep them without any repercussions and punishment by the world community.

[Deleted]

None or everyone.

[grandpab]

Obviously only America.

[Deleted]

None.

Bar that, you can't control it.

Unless you forcefully invade, or offer enough incentive to persuade them otherwise; Nuclear capability will always be the pinnacle every nation will aspire for.

The sheer deterrent it provides is enough protection.

[Radux]

While I wish "none" were an option, I guess my next preferred answer would be "Don't let anyone else make more, regardless of the nation".

[BergErr]

Iceland.
/10

[lockedout]

Only Antarctica.

[Deleted]

Oh, nice poll.

Voted NK of course.

[Moralgy]

If none were an option, I would have selected that.

Since it wasn't, USA, UK and France are the only ones of that list I feel safe with having them, as of right now.

[Lobstarrr]

Doesn't seem biased in the slightest.

North Korea it is!

[Nakura Chambers]

P5+Israel & India.

Ukraine is a bit too unstable for me vote "yes." However, if we set up a puppet government that I approved of, I might allow them to have a few tactical nuclear warheads, through our nuclear weapons sharing program.

[Shaede]

I'm an all or none kind of guy. Part of me wishes everyone would just have one and let the war of the world play out, and the other part wishes they were never acquired by anyone.

[Itisamuh]

None or everyone.

Sadly, this.

[Xanjori]

North Korea, Pakistan and Ukraine, if we look back at history these 3 nations have't caused much damage, especially on the scale of some of the others, I feel they should be allowed nukes.

[Sketchy]

Would've been nice to have a None option.
Voted NK b/c Fearless Leader won't abuse power.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

As dangerous as nuclear weapons are they have kept the peace pretty well. Hasn't been a world war since they were brought to the stage. Keeping them in the hands of the USA, Russia, and China pretty much insures these nations not wanting to engage in war with each other or on a massive world stage. Will it stop all side conflicts or wars? Hell no. But it keeps them localized and contained.

[Deleted]

Everybody or nobody.

[xindralol]

anyone with a rational government I guess ... the thing is most of the information (on how to 'create' the weapons) is freely available and the scientists can be bought so ultimately there's no way to prevent any country with enough incentive to become a nuclear power.
that being said, I think it's important that the US does have nuclear weapons; we have enough enemies that would love to see our beautiful country extinct and nuclear weapons provide us with leverage (it's called cold war for a reason, the power of nuclear weapons is that you DON'T have to use them).

[Granyala]

Well USA could be considered the worlds largest terrorist, depending on whom you ask.
So "Not allowed because evil terrorist!11" is off the table.

As such I only say: The more, the merrier.

Seriously though: Not even North Korea used them.
Iran will get them but not use them either, they just want to belong to the "Nukes are cool club".

it's called cold war for a reason

Umm, you are aware that the cold war is over, right?
Besides: Todays weapon of choice is far more devastating: economics.

[Zecora]

The total abolishment of the bomb is near impossible to uphold for the time being, so none is not an option.

By being allowed to have nukes, I mean be able to keep them without any repercussions and punishment by the world community.

Seriously, a poll like that and no "None." option?