Which countries should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

[Kalyyn]

America, Britain, France, Taiwan, and South Korea should be allowed to produce them. Other NATO-friendly nations can lease them from America. Anyone else having them is heavily against our interests.

- - - Updated - - -

Hiroshima and Nagasaki disagrees with anyone saying America.


I vote none.

I find it funny how westerners love to feel offended for the Japanese, but actual Japanese people literally do not care. They've moved on, but for some reason the rest of the world is like "NO, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BE FUCKING ANGRY FOR THE REST OF ETERNITY!!!1!11!"

[Tierbook]

I could have sworn that it was a given America gave Israel nukes, i had an informative history kinda game for my computer a long time ago and one of its parts talked about nations with nukes and it listed Israel as receiving 50 or so from America.

MK just found 1 of the disks and its Called WW2 attack! From Pearl Harbor to Potsdam

[OscaR]

US only so they can use it to spread democracy and freedom to everyone.

[Kalyyn]

US only so they can use it to spread democracy and freedom to everyone.

Surgeon General's Warning: Democracy can cause blindness if you stare directly at it, and freedom tends to have a pale-green glow which can cause severe skin burns.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Surgeon General's Warning: Democracy can cause blindness if you stare directly at it, and freedom tends to have a pale-green glow which can cause severe skin burns.

Halp IT BURNS US!!!!!!!!!

[Tierbook]

US only so they can use it to spread democracy and freedom to everyone.

Railguns are much cheaper

[Roadblock]

None. /10chars

[Mormolyce]

Ah poor India and Pakistan, people apparently trust them less than Iran and Israel. And they actually HAVE nuclear weapons!

I find it funny how westerners love to feel offended for the Japanese, but actual Japanese people literally do not care. They've moved on, but for some reason the rest of the world is like "NO, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BE FUCKING ANGRY FOR THE REST OF ETERNITY!!!1!11!"

Probably because their culture doesn't talk about certain things, for fairly obvious reasons.

I've heard that most Japanese people don't even know what "Pearl Harbour" was.

[Kalyyn]

Halp IT BURNS US!!!!!!!!!

Please remain calm! What you are experiencing is simply your body adjusting to all the freedom you now have! Just look at your freedom levels!

[Tierbook]

Ah poor India and Pakistan, people apparently trust them less than Iran and Israel. And they actually HAVE nuclear weapons!



Probably because their culture doesn't talk about certain things, for fairly obvious reasons.

I've heard that most Japanese people don't even know what "Pearl Harbour" was.

People don't trust India and Pakistan because they really hate eachother

[Skroe]

How can you earn nuclear weapons?

In today's world? You basically can't. In the past, before the internet as it is today, when nuclear secrets were more well... secret? By engaging in a careful and methodical scientific and engineering program over years. Your country and it's scientists earn the knowledge and the know how through internal technological advancement. Your country develops it's own indigenous nuclear designs. The US and UK did it jointly as part of the Manhattan Project. France did it on it's own. Russia / the USSR did it own it's own for the most part. China did not... their nuclear technology was most shared by the Soviets.

How does this contrast with today's world? Well Iran and North Korea, plus would be Quaddafi Era Libya, and Myanmar before they came clean all lifted directly from AQ Khan's designs, which he sold as a "nuclear weapon starter kit" of sorts, which he pioneered from Pakistan.

Pakistan and India's nuclear weapons themselves owe a lot to Chinese and Russian involvement.

The technology should be earned, and basically none of these states have done that. There are good reasons why after decades of work on them, Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapons have barely gotten better. They haven't gotten larger in yield, smaller in size, or more accurate. They haven't been MIRVED for the most part. They are very primitive weapons. Even China's nuclear weapons are extremely primitive compared to what the US/ UK, France and Russia have developed.

That's reflective of the extent that those four understand the technology and every other country simply emulates it.

- - - Updated - - -

Other NATO-friendly nations can lease them from America. Anyone else having them is heavily against our interests.

Historical note: this is essentially what happens.

During the Cold War, the US and USSR were both concerned about the spread of nuclear weapons outside of their control by the countries that were in their sphere of influence that were becoming increasingly stable. If left alone, both East and West Germany could have easily produced their own weapons by the 1970s. And moreover nationalist leaders of both countries could have made such programs a vehicle for popular support. Every country naturally wanted it's own "deterrent".

Both the US and USSR had no interest in a small country with it's own nuclear weapons program, like Italy, launching a nuclear attack on another country, and then it spiraliing out of control, so they both sought to control it.

The result was the dual-key system. Throughout the Cold War and to the Present day, the US based B-61 Nuclear Bombs in NATO countries. The agreement was, that if the host country forgoes nuclear weapons development, then the elected leaders of those countries would have one of two keys to the B-61. They would, under the umbrella of a NATO conflict, order their use and the bombs would fly on host country aircraft. The second key would be in the hands of the United States, which would have to co-authorize their use. The Bombs were also guarded by US servicemembers, but hosted on allied bases. For every NATO country, this was good enough. It spared them the massive expensive of having to start and maintain their own program, and gave them the capability they need.

The end result was, if World War III were to come, for example, Greek F-16s would carry American made B-61s co-ordered to deploy by their Prime Minister and the US.

This was an extremely smart way to prevent the spread of nuclear technology, because many of those countries gave up hosting at the end of the Cold War, and all that happened was the bombs were moved to the countries that still wanted it. There was no decontamination of nuclear sites, no spread of unemployed scientsts. Just moving of hardware.

The USSR of course, just forbid it's allies from starting the programs. But there are some exceptions. The USSR basically gifted nuclear weapons to China before the Sino-Soviet split. And to the present day, the US/UK nuclear weapons program is in parts joint. The UK uses Trident I and Trident II ICBMs and their associated warheads, which were co-developed with the US (as were several previous weapons, like the Polaris), but despite being American made, they are British owned and do not have the dual key system. When the British Government talks about an "independent deterrent", this is what they mean. Greece, for example, which still flew B-61s as of a few years ago, has a deterrent, but it is not an independent one.

[Deleted]

None or everyone.

Obviously only America.

I'd say no one, everyone or only America:P

Why only America? Because we're one of the few countries who wouldn't use it offensively or to bully other countries to do what we want.. AND more importantly, USA is one of the few countries that could use them to prevent a natural disaster, like for getting Earth's core to spin again or to thwart an alien invasion or just a humble meteor if one lacks imagination. Although I guess there is no harm in Canada, Australia and other countries that have never been to war (or at least after WW2) and probably never will having them either. I just don't see why they would want them.

[Darksoldierr]

It's been almost 70 years since the US invented the first one, and some nations are still incapable of doing so. If you can't do so in a safe manner and committ genocicde against your own people, you have no business trying to enter the nuclear community.

Well, not like USA and co allowing anyone to enter

[zalmatra]

i dont think we need nuclear weapons on the gorund..we need them in orbit ready to be deployed at a moments notice against any external force.

nuclear weapons on the ground means it has to take time to leave the atmosphere and there are much larger threats to our planet then petty nation bickering.

i say we need more advanced atomic weaponary capable of making explosions large enough to knock away black holes from our solar system. i mean the antimatter solar system type of destruction its the only thing that might change a black holes orbit.

not advancing nuclear or particle science for peaceniks is pure fantasy when there are real dangers in the cosmos that cannot be reasoned with..only pushed away so they dont gobble us up.

[PickleballAce]

YOU get a nuke!
And YOU get a nuke!
Everybody gets a nuke!

[Felya]

Costa Rica and Bagladesh... Maybe Peru...

[Azutael]

I'd like nobody to have nuclear weapons. Especially not rogue states.
But, for the moment. With multiple nations and various alliances having the capability, seems to make sure nobody uses them against each other.

But that could change one day, and then we are all fucked.

We have been terrifyingly close to a nuclear war multiple times already. Like for example in 1995, when Norway sent up a rocket to study the aurora from Andøya in northern Norway.
The Russians systems mistook this for a U.S trident missile, and where naturally on high alert. The nuclear weapons command suitcase was brought to the president (Yeltsin) and activated for the first time. Luckily, he chose to wait it out - the world was mere minutes away from an all out nuclear war.

Norway had notified several countries beforehand, including Russia. This vital information was not passed on to the radar technicians.
At least this incident lead to more strict protocols when it comes to notification of such events.

Then you have other incidents, like a bear intruder, computer glitches, navigation errors and so on.

[Keosen]

Many supports that the only country which should be allowed to have nukes is the only country in history that used them against unarmed civilians, fuck logic.

[Deleted]

Tsar bombas for everyone........










Or preferably no one

[Deleted]

None should have nuclear arms nor any kinds of mass destructive weapons!