Why is it ok for the US to have nuclear weapons but not for North Korea?

I know most of you will say that Kim Jong Il is nuts, but apart from that other nations think the same of the US leaders..
All nations that posess nukes have tested them. Including the US! and the US was the only country that used it in a war.
So, again, I understand that North Korea use it to blackmail the world, and force them to negotiate to gain aids and whatnot..
But why is it okay for France, China, US, Israel, India to have nukes, but not North Korea or Iran?
As for me I'd prefer that nobody in this world would have it...(but if one has it, than the others have the right equally to posess it)

Dear An Nghi, I wish you said something else besides that (!)..
I would have been interested in your opinion too.

First of all, we have to look at the basis for which these nuclear weapons are developed. Just like the businesses in any free economy have the right to maintain a competitive edge, a nations military also has the same right to be on the verge of nuclear weapons, who otherwise would feel to be at competitive disadvantage. The countries that u mentioned which possess those nukes including USA have political stability in their own respective nations. If you notice, in times of emergency in Pakistan which happened recently, USA was putting considerable pressure on Pakistan to safeguard its nuclear assets. Had the emergency been continued for long, then Pakistan would have topped the list before North Korea and Iran against the possession of nuclear weapons because they have nukes with them. The point i am trying to convey is during military regime, a ruler can declare war on any nation and the authority to use nukes solely rests on him. But for countries like China, India, France, USA or other nations which possess nukes, the decision to use those weapons should go through parliament or White House. Even the president of United States can't give consent to deploy a nuke weapon until he's briefed and confirmed that threat to the nation is eminent and must use something more powerful to neutralize the threat. That's why even the nuclear briefcase (or football) stays with an aide accompanying him wherever the president goes.
As for the nations that you mentioned why they can't possess nuclear weapon i.e; North Korea and Iran, both of these nations lack political stability. North Korea is still under military regime and Iran's political situation is of questionable concern. The fact is Iran's own political situation has isolated the nation from the world, where, there's no way to extract information on what would they do if they acquire nuclear fuel from countries generous to them.
Another point of view, name any country that has nuclear weapons uses nuclear fuel only for making weapons? These countries also use nuclear fuel for generating electricity. That's why, if u see, India, China and other western powers have been so successful in utilizing the nuclear technology. They don't face pressure from rest of the world to stop using nuclear fuel because they are open to communicate with what they do with them.
If you follow current events, you might have encountered last year news where North Korea said that if they get oil they will abandon all nuclear facilities, for which USA compensated for that by giving oil and bringing some balance in the region for some time until they test fired a rocket this year. If N.Korea really wanted to continue with nuclear programme, then they should have persuaded to the world that they are using the technology for human purposes, say for generating electricity. Instead they wanted oil for such trade-off. And we all know there's no such kind of facility in the world that uses oil to produce electricity. That oil was for their military purposes. In a nutshell, it not just because of one problem the world is putting pressure on North Korea and Iran, rather its a chain of problems that contributed to such vulnerability and a stiff stance against these two countries for possessing such technology. There's also a fault of US govt. and the media in it. The US. states terrorism as the main concern to cover-up and the media exaggerates terrorism. Its not terrorism but a political and business imbroglio because the US govt. doesn't want to point fingers towards any nations govt. as they got to protect the interests of their corporations too where they do businesses.

".....but you must be from Jew York,...."

I guess we all know where you stand now! Racist, anti-Semitic, America hating, bigot! Report Abuse

in the 21st century nuclear weapons are symbolic of power. The rule goes, if you have a nuclear weapon that means you are a superpower. Trust me, no country will be stupid enough to actually push the Red button, however a country like North Korea just wants to show the world that it is a superpower. And a superpower means you have wealth, you have resources, and you have the capability to attack and defend. A nuclear weapon is not as much of a threat as it is an exclamation.

You pretty well answered your own question with your follow up statements except that the US, France, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, etc do not show the inclination to use them and threaten to wipe out another country with them.

BTW, there is no proof, and Israel denies the accusation, that Israel has nuclear weapons. It is thought by some people that they do, but there has never been any proof.

Cause America wouldn't nuke a country it dint like unlike iran. Iran would start ww3 with israel. North korea should not get nukes cause they will threaten the whole world for years to come i dint think they would use them but you still have to be causes cause nukes aren't just a bomb they could kill millions of people if you ask me i dint think anyone not even the US should have power like that.

Iran would be crazy not to develop nukes. the US has invaded a country on their border and directly threatened them with war. if that's not a justification to build up arms then what is?

it's just classic hypocrisy. if the situation were reversed and iran had bombed canada and threatened to drop bombs in new york, do you think it would be outragous for the US to respond? i think not.

Man does not know the true fall out from nuclear weapons, it is very unstable and never safe no matter what humans think that it is .

Why have nuclear weapons at all , who is going to fire the first nuclear warhead and start a Nuclear war , there are no winners in a Nuclear war , only death will be the winner, Humans , Animals , Plant life , so much loss Death will be the winner

The US doesn't threaten anyone with nukes. N. Korea has threatened to use them as well as Iran. You don't hear India threatening people with nukes or Pakistan. They have them to nullify the ability to devastate each other.

they need them as they have been threatened by the usa for decades and are still at war against them,

the usa has no rights to tell anyone what to do look at how they behave at gitmo and in iraq

Because the US is /never/ going to be using their nukes against an enem...Oh, wait.

because they kill for good and not evil

Because who do you trust with a nuclear weapon? Its completely different situation when the United States used it. One, were talking in 1945. Yes, it wasnt hundreds and hundread years ago, but its still a significant amount of time where the US could have easily used theirs again but didnt. Second, if we didnt use it, there was a big chance that Japan wasnt even going to consider surrendering and would most likely attack. Now we can be fair and allow North korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Russia have these weapons but chances are, probably not by Russia, America will be gone. Along with all our allies. Now that the nuclear bomb was created there is no way that it is going to disappear. If the united states disarmed and didnt participate in the practice of nuclear weapons, we wouldnt be able to guarentee these other countries would also agree and be honest about it.

I can't imagine why you'd think "right" or "fair" has anything to do with it. The genie can't be put back in the bottle, but that doesn't mean everybody should have a nuclear arsenal. The countries on your list developed them when the very existence of the free world or the country in question was threatened. There is no such threat currently to either North Korea or Iran EXCEPT if they develop nuclear weapons. The primary motive in the current nuclear powers is defensive, that of these two rogues give every appearance of being offensive.

Come on, we all know that it is not true that blondes are dumber than a rock but your question makes me wonder now!

Some countries can be trusted with nukes and some can not! North Korea and Iran are two countries who can not be trusted at all!

Why would you want an armed Iran or N. Korea be in a position to do great harm ? Do you hate America that much that you would allow a nutcase to be in a position to kill millions of Americans just to be fair?

What good would come from Iran having a weapon of mass destruction? Do you hate Israel that much that you want to see them destroyed? Move to Iran or N. Korea and see how much you like living there!

If you take the nuclear weapons away from the US the whole world will be in danger! Most of the countries in the world rely on the US to defend them and use nukes if necessary. So far the US has been very restrained but a US without any nukes will only mean that countries run by crazy megalomaniacs will use the nukes and millions will die!

loaded question LOL..Ok, not the same but, one thing I always found bizarre about the Cuban Missle Crisis, was that we(U.S.) didn't want the Soviets placing Nukes at our front door, but, we had no problems pointing nukes at Moscow from sites in Germany, Turkey, etc. Seemed to me like that was a double standard. America = Good, U.S.S.R = evil was the way it was portrayed but it's not always that cut and dry. I'm not even sure Kim Jong would use nukes to blackmail the world to gain aid, I actually think he would simply lob a few at the U.S. at the expense of his own country if he had the technology. China has nukes to repel Japan/U.S./Russia/India the U.S. has nukes for deterrence, same with Russia. Neither blew each other off the map during the Cold War, so, it would take something on a grand scale to get either Russia or the U.S. to launch. France has nukes just so the leadership in Paris can say "we're one of the big boys" lol, India has nukes because of Pakistan and China, Pakistan is an evil, evil country that the U.S should not be allied with and should be thought of as a threat. It's a sad day when the U.S. has to form an alliance with Pakistan. Israel has nukes because the U.S. said they could, and of all the countries and i'll get ripped for this, Israel needs them the most.

America is committed to democracy and individual rights and freedoms and North Korea is not. North Korea should not be allowed to use military force to establish tyranny. The U.S. should use military force to defend its freedoms and way of life.

"Julius Rosenberg (May 12, 1918 鈥?June 19, 1953) and Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg (September 28, 1915 鈥?June 19, 1953) were Jewish American communists who were executed in 1953 after having been found guilty of conspiracy to commit espionage. The charges were in relation to the passing of information about the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union. Their execution was the first of civilians, for espionage, in United States history."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_...

(!)....