Why is Atom Bomb limited to certain countries?

[Mororvia]

Why on Earth would a country that has a civilian nuclear power system want to put perfectly good U or Pu in a bomb?

Because its a show of power (in the political sense). They think it gives them a voice, and to a certain extent it does.

As for the required fissionable material getting that is very difficult if one is not a nation state, and would set off multiple alarms in the national community.

And this is another reason to not allow other countries to have nuclear weapons. All it would take is one unsecured facility to allow material to get out either by straight theft or perhaps a disgruntled scientist willing to sell it to rogue organizations for profit.

 

[nismaratwork]

This has clearly settled the debate. Your overwhelming logic devastates all arguments brought to bear against it

It wasn't poetry, but when you strip away the diplomacy, he's right.

 

[russ_watters]

So to sum up:
1. Because they can't afford it.
2. Because they decide it is not worth the money (not the same as #1).
3. Because they don't see the value. (also not the same as #1 or 2).
4. Because of the negative political consequences.
5. Because they signed a treaty that they feel they should honor.

 

[russ_watters]

It wasn't poetry, but when you strip away the diplomacy, he's right.

No, he isn't. The OP's question wasn't why the US doesn't want other countries to have the bomb it was why those other countries just don't go get it. That, setting aside that the diplomacy is a key issue so you shouldn't strip it away!

 

[russ_watters]

Take the USA for example since the mid 90's 20% of the electrical power in the USA has come from down blended Russian HEU bombs. A damm good use of nuclear weapons.

I've never heard that before - very cool, but do you have a source?

 

[nismaratwork]

No, he isn't. The OP's question wasn't why the US doesn't want other countries to have the bomb it was why those other countries just don't go get it. That, setting aside that the diplomacy is a key issue so you shouldn't strip it away!

I know that diplomacy is key, but in the end we want to be the ones with the stick of course... us, and those we count as allies. One of the reasons that Iraq never become nuclear is that we, and Israel, used a big stick to keep them from getting it... and a good thing too. When diplomacy fails it DOES come down to the stick, and I've already talked about the diplomatic and MAD angles earlier in the thread.

 

[JaredJames]

I think that when all is said and done, the hassle a country gets for creating a nuke would far outweigh any potential benefit to them.

So it really is a case of "those with the bigger sticks" stopping them simply "going and getting it".

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

I've never heard that before - very cool, but do you have a source?

Yes I do, it is the http://www.usec.com/megatonstomegawatts.htm" program. This program should defiantly get a second run before its expiration in 2013.

 

[zorro]

You also have to realize that allowing a country such as Iran which is likely to use them against you, to build such weapons is not a good idea from your own point of view.

It's one thing to say every country should be allowed to have nukes, but do you think any country in the west would enjoy the idea of Osama Bin Laden holding nukes? Of course not.

On what grounds do you say that Iran is a country which is likely to use them against others.
If building such weapons is not a good idea, then no one should have it. Every country that has nuclear power should abandon it openly. How can you build your own nuclear power and stop others from making it?

Why do you drag in Osama Bin Laden here? We are talking about countries not him.

Back to Iran... are they safer with Israel and the USA ready to kill them if they suddenly change course (unlikely it seems)? They managed to beat back Iraq, which was being supplied by the USA, without nukes... what's the need?

Yes I think they are now much more safer than before - having built the nuclear weapons. USA/Israel planned to attack Iran if they did not abandon their nuclear programmes. But they did not. WHY? they are afraid of the after-effects. It can lead to a 3rd World War. They are just good for threatening being the super-powers. But USA attacked Iraq - WHY? there are a plenty of reasons. I think one of them is that Iraq did not have an Atom Bomb.

I also want to be clear: North Korea could nuke the South, but it wouldn't 'save' or protect them... it would be suicide. The same goes for Iran, or virtually any other nation...

Why on the Earth would North Korea nuke the South for no reason?

 

[JaredJames]

On what grounds do you say that Iran is a country which is likely to use them against others.
If building such weapons is not a good idea, then no one should have it. Every country that has nuclear power should abandon it openly. How can you build your own nuclear power and stop others from making it?

Why do you drag in Osama Bin Laden here? We are talking about countries not him.

You're missing the point. It isn't necessarily the country (although in NK case it is), but more to do with the risk of extremist and terrorist groups getting their hands on the materials / devices.

In the US, UK and other western countries the nuclear facilities are very secure for the most part, but we can't guarantee such measure will be present in these 'risk' countries. We can't risk people who are considered a danger to us acquiring the technology and posing a threat to us. Whether it be a country or a sect within a country.

Osama getting a nuke would be an absolute nightmare for us.

Why on the Earth would North Korea nuke the South for no reason?

You really don't understand the difficulties in that region do you.

 

[CAC1001]

Liberal democracies, for the most part, I don't see any problem with them having anuclear weapons, because liberal democracies pretty much only have them for deterrance purposes. You don't allow rogue nations controlled by maniacs to have nukes however, for the same reasons you do not allow the murderers and rapists and terrorists in society to own guns.

Big nations, like the Soviet Union or China, these you really could not do anything about, but at least when dealing with something like the Soviet Union or China, you knew/knoq that you were dealing with a government, not a country led by one maniacal leader who might do who-knows-what.

Many nations fear Iran having a nuke I believe because Iran historically has been an expansionist-hungry country.

 

[nismaratwork]

Liberal democracies, for the most part, I don't see any problem with them having anuclear weapons, because liberal democracies pretty much only have them for deterrance purposes. You don't allow rogue nations controlled by maniacs to have nukes however, for the same reasons you do not allow the murderers and rapists and terrorists in society to own guns.

Big nations, like the Soviet Union or China, these you really could not do anything about, but at least when dealing with something like the Soviet Union or China, you knew/knoq that you were dealing with a government, not a country led by one maniacal leader who might do who-knows-what.

Many nations fear Iran having a nuke I believe because Iran historically has been an expansionist-hungry country.

I would add that Iran has a lot to fear from its neighbors, even more than the US. Saudi Arabia and others have no love for Iran, which they see as unpredictable and separate ethnicity.

Abdul Quadeer: As JarednJames has pointed out, you clearly don't understand such issues as the tensions in the Korean peninsula... how is it that you think from here you can grasp nuclear policy for the world?

 

[zorro]

You're missing the point. It isn't necessarily the country (although in NK case it is), but more to do with the risk of extremist and terrorist groups getting their hands on the materials / devices.

That is a different story. It is the responsibility of the government.

In the US, UK and other western countries the nuclear facilities are very secure for the most part, but we can't guarantee such measure will be present in these 'risk' countries. We can't risk people who are considered a danger to us acquiring the technology and posing a threat to us. Whether it be a country or a sect within a country.

I don't understand what do you mean by secure here. Do you mean that terrorists can't get their hands on weapons in UK/US or something else?

You really don't understand the difficulties in that region do you.

Abdul Quadeer: As JarednJames has pointed out, you clearly don't understand such issues as the tensions in the Korean peninsula

I'm sorry I really don't know the tension there.

I would add that Iran has a lot to fear from its neighbors, even more than the US. Saudi Arabia and others have no love for Iran, which they see as unpredictable and separate ethnicity.

I don't see any point in Iran fearing from its neighbours. It is the neighbours fearing from Iran.

 

[zorro]

Liberal democracies, for the most part, I don't see any problem with them having anuclear weapons, because liberal democracies pretty much only have them for deterrance purposes. You don't allow rogue nations controlled by maniacs to have nukes however, for the same reasons you do not allow the murderers and rapists and terrorists in society to own guns.

Big nations, like the Soviet Union or China, these you really could not do anything about, but at least when dealing with something like the Soviet Union or China, you knew/knoq that you were dealing with a government, not a country led by one maniacal leader who might do who-knows-what.

You don't have any right to call any nation/its leader a rogue/ a maniac. That is so unethical.

Many nations fear Iran having a nuke I believe because Iran historically has been an expansionist-hungry country.

Is it the only country? Read the history again. Tell me what else did you find out.

 

[JaredJames]

Abdul Quadeer, what country are you from?

Your responses seem to indicate you are from one of our so called "rogue states".

 

[JaredJames]

That is a different story. It is the responsibility of the government.

And if the government is / is controlled / infiltrated by these risk groups?

I'm sorry I really don't know the tension there.

Then I would stop making ridiculous statements about why countries such as NK should be allowed to hold nukes.

 

[nismaratwork]

That is a different story. It is the responsibility of the government.



I don't understand what do you mean by secure here. Do you mean that terrorists can't get their hands on weapons in UK/US or something else?






I'm sorry I really don't know the tension there.



I don't see any point in Iran fearing from its neighbours. It is the neighbours fearing from Iran.

Responding to the part in bold

Is it not simple logic that a frightened neighbor is more likely to be hostile?

You later ask why I or others would think that Iran would be more likely to use a nuclear device than other countries... well... they have called for the destruction of Israel, so that's a start. In truth, maybe they'd find themselves constrained by the same kind of fear of destruction that keeps North Korea marginally in line.

You could say that a country's willingness to use a WMD is in part inversely proportional to their investment in world affairs, commerce, diplomacy, etc. Iran, and NK are very isolated nations which have shown a willingness to sell dangerous military technology to people many western nations consider enemies. These are reasons from OUR perspective, to enforce controls.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...

The consensus is that this thread needs to stay closed. We are not going to solve nuclear proliferation issues here.