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?

Which country has even used their nukes by the way? Taking USA out of the equation, your theory implies there is no harm in arming countries with nukes. Pakistan is doing totally fine with its nuclear arsenal. If Israel’s murderous genocidal regime can control themselves in regards to nukes, why not Iranians especially as Trump unilaterally ripped the agreement they did with Obama - the same he is now asking them to sign!! Except after bombing them and taking their oil.

How is this not Iraq all over again? How will this not result in mass immigration toward Europe again?

And once they have done this, who will be next? How come all other countries in the world living next door to marauding genocidal maniacs will not want to get their hands on nukes now just in case?

You're dodging the issue.
You complain that Israel has nukes. I point out that they haven't used their nukes.

You change the subject.

NB Miles back upthread I observed that your use of 'blood thirst' or whatever it was of the Israeli government (or people, can't recall which) evoked the blood libel. You never responded to that.

You continually accuse the Israelis of being 'genocidal'.

So surely, by your metric, they would have used their nukes...

No one has used nukes and that is the whole point of having them. Do you think Ukrainians are now going to feel justified in getting nukes? They abondoned their nuclear programme on our empty promises and look where they are. Even the countries that weren’t looking into it before will start looking, especially those around rowdy neighbours.

I don’t understand what you mean by blood libel. Sorry for missing that point. Let me read about it.

@Amplepombear
I don’t understand what you mean by blood libel. Sorry for missing that point. Let me read about it.
Truly, if you are going to have very strong views on the Jewish state, it really, really, really helps to understand the country and the people, and to do that it isn pretty much essential to have a reasonable grounding in Jewish history.

I am not Jewish. I have known about the blood libel - its origins, its impact, its continuing use - since I was a teenager. It used to be the claim that Jews murder Christian children to use their blood to make Passover matzos. Now it has morphed into the Jewish state being particularly bloodthirsty and keen to murder children.

See here https://www.adl.org/resources/article/blood-libel-accusations-resurface-wake-oct-7 for some recent examples.

Thank you for the information.

I will read about it and come back to see what you have said/asked regarding this.

There's actually a really easy solution to the problem of who should have nukes. If more than 5% of a country claim to follow any religion, No nukes allowed. In fact I'd go as far to ban all arms sales to them apart from sticks and rocks. If people want to believe in fairy stories that's up to them, but they shouldn't be allowed to arm themselves when obviously mentally ill.

Great idea. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, North Korea today, China under Mao - all sane, humane regimes where religion was discouraged.

SisterTeatime, got to start somewhere.

Well, after thinking about it I've changed my mind. All the religious countries should be allow nukes because the world would be a better place without irrational nutjobs who believe in sky fairies. Obviously some small parts of the world would be left uninhabitable but less crazy people in the world would be a good thing. May the best God win.