Why do some countries feel they’re entitled to hold nuclear weapons and others can’t?

[Changingplace]

Considering the USA is the only country ever to have used a nuclear weapon on war, why do some countries consider themselves entitled to them and others not?

Especially considering the more recent instability of the US, much as I might not agree with the politics of countries who don’t hold them/are stopped from developing them, surely they’re within their rights to be able to defend themselves in the same way as anyone else?

The situation in USA at the moment is unusual.

I would argue generally that countries need a demonstrated ability to keep the weapon secure, controls in place for its use, be a democracy etc.

I’d be really concerned in countries that have coups, regime change, and so on.

Moral superiority.

Who said it was fair? Life isn’t fair and i definitely don’t want dictatorships abd regimes holding nuclear weapons.

Yeah. Why shouldn’t the religious maniacs who are the dictators of Iran have nuclear weapons they could use to kill their enemies and themselves? They don’t care—their religion tells them they’d be martyrs in paradise if they die in a conflagration so they have nothing to lose.

Basically the countries that already have them believe that the mutually assured destruction situation has had the weird side-effect of enforcing peace. Which it probably has. They are the least-used weapon in history.

Those other countries can’t be trusted. Which might be sort of true in terms of dodgy government that could put any psycho in charge.

However, considering the batshit leader of America right now, I’m not sure any of us are entirely safe.

TL:DR; realpolitik.

Here you go, OP. This Sunday Times column sets it out in clear terms.

Israel knows what we won’t accept: the mullahs want nuclear war

www.thetimes.com/article/56bc381b-777a-4dbd-a3eb-54bdfeca1c2c?shareToken=1c2d54cbeb519b19c67f91c0d4b96c99

It amazes me that the US managed to position itself in the Western imagination as the good guys considering they dropped, not one, but two atomic bombs just as soon as they had a shiny new toy the capability.

It’s a good thing that they’re not the only ones in possession of the technology. But giving one to everyone in the audience is not the path to world peace.

There's a big difference between using nuclear weapons for defence in the middle of long running war, and randomly chucking one at a neighboring country because you dont agree with their way of life.

America has long been the custodian of the world, stepping in to keep the peace and policing other countries disputes. Thats not to say they've done a great job or not used their power to their advantage. They've been reprehensible at times. But realistically, who else is going to police nuclear arms around the world? Israel? China?

Because big boss USA thinks they are the world's policeman and everyone must obey there rules which don't apply to them. Of course. But the old order is changing.

The US believes it is the world’s policeman. In reality their role has been the world’s mafioso, deciding who lives and who dies. ‘Upholding democracy’ only when people elect the ‘right’ leaders, killing nurses, teachers and priests when those people supported socialist causes. Supporting torture and extra-judicial killings wherever they wanted. Rendition and now sending people without trial to foreign prisons. The US has convinced themselves and their allies that the ends ALWAYS justify the means.

It reminds me of a clever explanation of how history pings back into place if you misuse time travel (bear with me). There’s a philosophy question, ‘would you go back in time and kill baby Hitler?’. You pick yes. But the fact is that Germany had serious social issues and the likelihood of a Hilter-type is high. So another dictator appears. You go back adn kill him, and the next baby, and the next baby. Well fuck it if you’re killing babies you might as well invade Poland.

The US decided it was the light on the hill, the beacon of order in an evil world. Therefore everything it did was good, including the evil things. Now they do so many evil things but they frame it all as good. The sewer of poverty, homelessness and incarceration it has become (except for a few very rich people) is the ‘ends’.

LOL x-posted.

But the USA, in more ‘normal’ times have been the only ones to detonate a nuclear weapon, what has even made them trustworthy in this space?

So who’s going to take them off the USA now? The leadership of countries can and clearly does change.

To end a long war that had dragged on and had no obvious end in sight. And the horror that ensued should never be repeated.

Truth is, no one wants anyone new to have nuclear weapons. Ideally no one would have them but we can’t go backwards.

It’s a strange kind of mutual agreement that the countries that hold them have ever been ‘trusted’ to hold them given US has used them, under what would’ve been considered much more stable times than we live in currently.

Another question - why do most countries not want to have nuclear weapons?

Are they relying on others and spending their money on other stuff?

Completely agree, especially since the US openly now says they don’t want to fund world order.

True, or can’t they afford them?

Did you know that we rely massively on the USA for our nuclear weapons

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/03/uks-nuclear-deterrent-relies-us-support-there-are-no-other-easy-alternatives

I think that in NATO just France has its own independent nuclear weapons system.

There was an interesting program on the BBC iPlayer urge people too watch called, America the world's policeman,or something like that.

It goes into some detail about it all, what stood out was Saddam gassing the Kurds and they didn't intervene and were widely critised.

Was America as involved in the world's affairs before the second world war??

Thank you for sharing this, this is exactly the kind of reasoning I wanted to understand.

Yes was aware of this, which makes it even more frightening that the wider world hold a reliance on the USA over nuclear weapons.

@Changingplace because they are an establishment old democracy and as much as we all find trump..... blank blank... he's not a war mongering person is he?

Because it's a democracy then people can cause trouble if someone sent crazy with the bomb but there are also checks and balances.

Not so with Iran, China, north Korea etc

Because the countries that have them have them directly under state control. Iran as a policy uses proxies to do it’s dirty work for it, estimates are something like 1-3 billion a year between hamas, hezbollah, the previous assad regime, houthis. They also supply weapons etc. The fear is that Iran uses it as leverage over other countries (Lebanon is slowly trying to shake off hezbollahs death grip right now) or just uses it to wipe out Israel like they have been saying for a while. Literally no other country is so fixated on another country in the way that Iran is with Israel (perhaps Indian and Pakistan). Other possibilities I’ve heard from commentators in the anti terror area is the possibility of small nuclear warheads given to non state actors and then denying responsibility. There is also the problem of proliferation, Saudi has said that if Iran obtains nuclear missiles then it will too.

Iran has fundamentally de-stabilised the middle east for decades, theres a bloody good reason it shouldn’t have nuclear weapons, primarily that it is heavily involved in terror financing and the disruption of Institutions in several countries. These are primarily arab countries and the deaths have primarily been arabs.

@Changingplace why are you frightened? I'm extremely happy that the USA and not say china has the upper hand (for now)