Why is it OK for the United States to have nuclear weapons and that they can decide who should and shouldn't have them?
Its called National interest. States can and do conduct foreign policy to benefit their nation. The older name for it is “Real Politik.” Discouraging the spread of nuclear weapons to less stable nations is in the interest of the United States.Well the US has weapons why can’t we?” Who is the US to dictate to us how we conduct foreign policy?” “After all we have our national interests to consider too.”Sure that is true, plus the technology was spread by our own “Atoms for Peace Program” and the Russian equivalent. The ability to produce a weapon is within reach of a lot of nations.The fact is its like the kid that gets the shinny new toy, the neighbors kid wants one too. The USSR got one because the US had one. China went nuclear to counter Russia. India tested nuclear bombs to counter China. Pakistan got an A Bomb to counter India. Now Iran is very near getting a weapon. What happens next. KSA has already announced that if Iran gets one they will too.What happens if a nation with a few devices has its arsenal threatened? It becomes a use it or loose it scenario. Particularly when delivery systems in these nations is by vulnerable launching systems like liquid fueled missiles, cruise missiles, and obsolete bombers.Another problem has to do with the security of the launch system. All modern powers have fail safe type systems that require national command authority and at least two people to launch the weapon. Is that true in the DPRK? Who decides when to launch in Iran?As these weapons spread, with unknown command and control, with tiny vulnerable arsenals, with religious zealots, petty dictators, and unstable governments, each with its own button, the chances of accidental war increases.The US and USSR had several close calls. Several of these were because of false sensor readings. Some were misinterpretation of political events, with only one being truly deliberate, the Cuban Missile crises.Finally how secure is each arsenal? We don’t know. We assume that such a national asset is well guarded but is it for sure? Having a storage facility that is secure is great but what happens during a coup? or what about a civil war breaking out?Are you ready to see nations like Venezuela nuclearized? At one time they had the money. What about Egypt under Morsi?As long as the situation is how it is it is in the national interest of the United States to oppose further spread of the weapons into the world.
Why is the USA allowed to have nuclear weapons but not other countries like Iran and North Korea?
I thought I’d see some American exceptionalism in some answers, and I wasn’t disappointed. Nowadays, a nuclear arsenal is desired for defensive purposes and nothing more. If someone here TRULY believes Iran or Nkorea wants to start ww3, they are deceiving themselves. They want nuclear capability to ward off an attack by any outsiders. These small countries know very well they will never have real delivery capability (ICBM) to become a true threat. They may “say” that, but that doesn’t mean they believe it. Kim Jong wants his nukes for one reason…if the US (or anyone else) puts foot on N.K. territory, he’ll fight them off with traditional weapons until the moment that the enemy has the most soldiers on the ground (and maybe N.K. is on the verge of defeat) and launch a nuclear “defense strategy” on his own soil to wipe out the enemy (and his own people). Now, we all know Kim is crazy, even the most liberal thinking people know this, after all, history has proven it. But think what would happen in the US if an invasion force of a quarter of a million US soldiers died in an instant over in NKorea? The POTUS, republican or democrat would make no difference, would face massive unrest of such proportions that probably the US government would cease to exist as we know it.And I figure Iran wants nukes for the same reason, well for two reasons actually. First, to keep Israel from invading and second, to keep the US from getting its hands on the petroleum fields (and setting up a puppet state, as it always does).Here’s a good question…name a country the US has invaded or bombed in the last 60 years that had nuclear missile capabilities. Anything come to mind? I didn’t think so.To finish, the US has historically ALWAYS wanted to control nuclear weapons access to EVERYONE. Truman didn’t believe the Soviets would EVER have nuclear missiles. And then, when the Soviets acquired the technology, the US blatantly lied to the US public on the strength of the Soviet stockpile in the later 1950’s to garner support for the Cold War.Always remember, the US is the only country to have ever used atomic weapons….twice.
Social civics help true of false american school?
1.The united states and soviet union reached a total agreement on controlling nuclear weapon. 2.The chief justice of the U.S. supreme court is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. military. 3. The laws in the uninted states cannot be suspended during a time of war. 4. One of the main purposes of prisons is to rehabilitate criminals. 5. Indeterminate sentencing occurs when someone is required to serve a full prison sentence without early release. 6.Disarmament occurs when some country decides to increase its supply of weapons. 7. Vocational training is seen as a way to help reform prisoner's. PLEASE HELP ME THESES QUESTION'S ARE EIETHER TRUE OR FALSE
What if the government decides that civilians do not need guns? Won't registration ensure that they can easily disarm all Americans?
That is a straw man argument.Like so much of the far-right’s mythology it sounds reasonable, but the evidence of history shows that it almost certainly false.The most frequent assertion regarding so-called gun rights that I have heard is some variant of “Hitler took away people’s guns and that is why they could not prevent his rise to power.”The fact is that the Nazis loosened restrictions on gun ownership. It wanted and encouraged every German citizen to keep guns. They outlawed gun ownership by Jews, but, even if they had had guns, the Jewish population was never large enough to prevent The Holocaust.If, in the extremely unlikely event that “The Government” did decide “that civilians do not need guns” it would simply have anyone who showed or possessed a gun arrested and imprisoned for a very long time. Perhaps, now that we have the ironically misnamed “Patriot Act” and the precedent set by Gitmo, they could imprison them forever. Without charge or trial.Yes, some soldiers or police officers might be shot and or killed by gun owners defending their weapons, but there is no chance whatsoever that, given the overwhelming firepower and manpower at “The Government’s” command, that anyone who even displayed a firearm or mentioned that they possessed one, could keep it if “The Government” truly wanted to take if from them.
Why is so important for a nation to have nuclear weapons?
To protect themselves.No country (Doubts over Pakistan and North Korea) has any intention to nuke anyone as that may lead to MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). The only intention to make nukes is to protect themselves and to deter foreign powers from interfering in the country. Possessing nukes have been fruitful for most of the nations as no foreign power dares to deal with them militarily (even though it is their fault). This can be clearly seen from the fact that India and USA are not dealing with Pakistan and North Korea by using their military power, and as the latter possess nukes so they are able to bully the world in some ways or the other.Lack of nukes can be a bane for a nation, specially when the invading force has one. Take an example of Iraq war where Saddam Hussein was overthrown. Do you think that Americans would have dared to invade the country if Iraqis had nukes in their inventory?Another case study: North Korea is repeatedly testing its nukes despite US protesting it and whole world raising an eyebrow. Why doesn't the so called superpowers invade North Korea instead of imposing sanctions? Just because they possess nukes and nothing else.So the thing is simple. If you possess nuclear weapons then the situation is tilted in your favour, else you run a high chance to get perished. Now its for you to decide. Do you want a nation to possess nukes and be this:Or you want a nation without nukes so that it runs a chance to get reduced to:The choice is yours.
How is gun control unconstitutional?
Because that is under the "arms" in the 2nd Amendment and really isn't the problem. The problem is criminals not what they use. Lets ban crime...wait? Gun Control Defined....... A theory espoused by some people; who claim to believe, against all logic and common sense, that a violent predator who ignores the laws prohibiting them from robbing, raping, kidnapping, torturing and killing their fellow human beings will obey a law telling them that they cannot own a gun. "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Thomas Jefferson Limiting would be the infringement part of the 2nd Amendment.