I have nuclear weapons but you can't have them. (moral, point of view)

[theo]

yeah you're right, it's long way off what i was told,

[greatcalgarian]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

I don't think that it's moral for any country to have nuclear weapons. I fully support all nuclear non-poliferation efforts and hope that they are completely effective, and I also think that the United States should disarm.

Unfortunately, I don't know if the US will ever give up its weapons of mass destruction. I agree that it's better that the US have them than anyone else, but it's even better if we don't have them, too.

The Chinese will say it is better for the Chinese to have them than anyone else.

The Russian will say it is better for the Russian to have them than anyone else.

The Israelis will say it is better for the Israelis to have them than anyone else.

The Indians will say it is better for the Indians to have them than anyone else.

My opinion is that every other nations have the right to say that except US who is the only nation to have used the nuclear weapon and took away human lives and cause misery for generations.

[UnityNow101]

Amen to that...I can see how the rest of the world would want nuclear weapons seeing as though we, the United States of America, have nuclear weapons and are the ONLY nation to have used them thus far. I just pray that every nation would downsize on their nuclear weapons, us included. A nuclear-weapon free world would be ideal, but is probably just wishful thinking. But we have no more right than anyone else to possess them.

[Dr. Nosophoros]

I don't feel race is involved at all, if you look at the countries you mentioned they have their own severe internal problems, they can't afford to make a move. Morality is a lie wrapped in convenience and that custom wrapped convenience is sold to the public, a public that seems to really want to make "sense" of things, wrap that around a "need" to believe in something, and you have a winner!

[Seraphiel]

No country in the world should have nuclear weapons. In fact no country in the world needs weapons. Having weapons and using weapons has no meaning. The result of war is always the same. A lot of people die without any reason and the only effect it has is that it spreads hate instead of solving problems.

[BUDDY]

I too don't believe that anyone should have nuclear weapons. However, as long as they exist, then my country feels the need to keep them as a deterance, and I actually agree with that philosophy. Until all countries uniliaterally agree to disarm, will continue to have them.

To the original question of the thread, I do believe that peace loving nations have a responsibility to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of those who have a proven track record of intollerance, hate, violence and national instability. For example, if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, I believe that they will use it either directly or indirectly against Israel. If North Korea develops a nuclear weapon, I am sure they will use it against South Korea. IF nether country uses them, then they will at least use the weapon as political capitol to attain more international power, and there by spread there damaging political views regionally.

Also, a nuclear weapon or any weapon for that matter is neither moral or immoral. You cannot by definition assign moral values upon inanimate objects. It would be like saying spoons are evil.

[Seraphiel]

my country feels the need to keep them as a deterance

Well.. There you have the problem. Your country feels it needs to have weapons. Countries have weapons because of fear. Countries buying weapons because they fear other countries, just do the opposite of what they want. They only strengthen fear globally, giving the need to other countries to buy even more weapons. To break this circle countries have to take control and destroy their weapons. Destroying weapons leads to less fear.

[nutshell]

Originally Posted by greatcalgarian

The Chinese will say it is better for the Chinese to have them than anyone else.

The Russian will say it is better for the Russian to have them than anyone else.

The Israelis will say it is better for the Israelis to have them than anyone else.

The Indians will say it is better for the Indians to have them than anyone else.

My opinion is that every other nations have the right to say that except US who is the only nation to have used the nuclear weapon and took away human lives and cause misery for generations.

That's right. Germany should have been the first to use them. (because, eventually, someone would have been the first)

[greatcalgarian]

Originally Posted by nutshell

That's right. Germany should have been the first to use them. (because, eventually, someone would have been the first)

I always wonder if Germany would have been the first to have invented or perfected the nuclear weapon, would they have used it? And if they used it, would London be the target. Definitely it is unlikely Germany could have used it on Washington and New York because technology during that time will not enable Germany to have long distance plane to do that, and the Navy is not that powerful for Germany. So the only casualty if Germany had the bomb first will be the poor British. Then Germany would have won the war, and history will be written differently, as we know history always sided with the winners and condemned the loosers.

So the British was and is very grateful to the US for dropping the two A-bombs on Japan.