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?

With due respect, I do not believe you have asked me a direct question. We are simply discussing a situation. However, if you ask a direct question, I will try to respond directly.

I would like to know this too: how come we expected Ukraine to have no nuclear weapons? How come Iran is expected to have no nuclear weapons yet Israel goes unnoticed and unchallenged despite being the most murderous country in the region currently?

But it’s been repeated here over and over that Iran has breached the agreement. Sorry are you talking about Gaza and Hamas? Russia? Who?

Iran has been playing it’s own game well before 9/11 happening. The problem with the west is that westerns think everything is about them. This is a regional issue and again even if the west has behaved appallingly why on earth does that mean that arab countries that have been destabilised by Iran ignore it. The region is destabilised by proxies that entire focus is terrorising their own people and bothering Israel. This is a separate issue to Gaza in that the Iranian regime could have attacked or hassled Israel over that without taking over other peoples countries.

Sorry what do you mean about the arms? Usa, france (probably as no-one knows who they sell to but their weapons are definitely all over africa) UK supply Israel plus their own domestic production. Iran is supplied by russia and china plus their own domestic production. I mean this isn’t a secret is it. I wasn’t avoiding the question it’s just not important.

I don't think it's a matter of entitlement. In the real world, some countries just do, and once a country has nuclear weapons then it's too late to do anything about it (as with North Korea - I don't think it's controversial to say that the North Koreans would be a much better condition if its regime didn't have them- they would have living conditions like the South Koreans instead of suffering from regular mass famines, and whole families- including children- being sent to prison if a single member upsets the regime).

The world would be much better if nuclear weapons didn't exist. But I disagree that the answer to this is to allow everyone to have them, no matter how unstable or aggressive a country is.

I think there will be difficultly with just buying nukes off the shelf. Israel bombed Iraq to prevent Saddam from getting nukes and Irans efforts were previously sabotaged. They are currently destroying all sites involved with producing the elements required to make nukes.

I think also theres a difference between the regime and Iranian people here. If the regime falls theres a good chance whoever comes next agrees to a NPT and means it, the. decides to focus on normalising Irans behaviour, opening up the country, stopping proxy funding and focusing on domestic issues.

OK - so a country decides to start its own nuclear weapons programme.

They might justify it by saying "We are worried about invasion" and this is the ultimate deterrent to invasion.

Then what....

You are ignoring the posts upthread sharing evidence from the U.S. officials that there is not enough evidence yet to say Iran has breached the agreement. Also, they were negotiating before Trump barged in with his own agenda and likely spooked them away.
Also, the main question of this thread still stands: why are some countries with murderous regimes are allowed have unregulated, uninvestigated nukes but others aren’t?

And finally, why should we not question the role of Western countries in destabilising the region? Saudis have been fighting proxies for ages in the region with the help of USA and U.K. They were direct sponsors of Taliban and their ideology. Same for Russia via Syria.
We are all collectively responsible for what is happening and only an international, collective initiative can work effectively.

When you say aggressive, do you mean Israel? Afterall, they have shown the world their aggression in a very open and blatant manner.

I think there is also a difference between having a nuke for a normal country vs a country that regularly threatens other countries. Saudi said it would obtain nukes if Iran got them, precisely because they know Iran to be a threat. Israel probably has nukes because of Iran.

So you want to do a regime change in Iran using the war criminals such as Netenyahu? Why should we believe anything this genocidal murderer says? In fact, we should believe in quite the opposite for what he is saying and acting on.

Also, I fear you do not require a typical nuke to destroy Israel. With today’s’ nukes, even a small one can eradicate them. So off the shelf can work quite well here.

So you agree Saudis were supporting Taliban who were threatening Iran so Iran wants nukes. And Israel has nukes because of Iran? So are you happy to disarm the Israeli regime as much as you want to disarm the Irani regime? Or does Israeli regimes war crimes are not important because they have killed a lesser people?

Then it depends what people (other countries, the UN) do about it.

I think that there would be strong opposition to some countries developing them (eg Iran) and less to others (eg Spain). The reasons might seem unfair or even racist, but I just think approaching this from a perspective of what would be "fair" is unrealistic. It's not how the world works, never has, never will.

And please tell me again: when was the last time a regime change stabilised the mid east? USA is happy doing all this because it destabilises Europe with mass immigration. We in Europe have everything to lose in contrast. So we must not support any further destabilisation in the region and strengthen our own borders.

Probably because your approach could lead to annihilation which most sensible people do not want.

There is no approach in the OP’s question. We are simply asking you: how is the murderous, war criminal, land grabbing regime of Israel permitted to have nukes but Iran is not? Or have Israel killed a lesser people?

I would include Israel in that, yes. Just to be clear .

I think it's a good example actually of why it is dangerous for any country to have nuclear weapons - the most stable democracy can end up in the position of having a leader who will take his previous mandate to allow him to attempt to completely destroy another country.

The op doesn’t ask that, it talks about the US not Israel.

I know you feel strongly about Israel but it’s not good reason to want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Are you calling Israel a stable democracy?

Also, you are right: Spain getting the permission and mid eastern countries not getting not getting it is racist and frankly dangerous and precisely why regimes like Iran want the nukes.
Do you see how two wrongs can never make a right and this madness should be stopped in a logical manner and not with ‘this is not how the world works - in this world, the powerful people get to grab the lands and weapons and resources’?

Why are you not concerned about what Iran will do with nuclear weapons?

i have just read the OP again. It does not talk about the U.S. getting them. It says that U.S. is the only country that has used them hence has no right to police the world about them.

And then it asks a generic question about all the countries of the world and not just Iran and Israel.
I am talking about Israel here because they have just shown the world how inhuman they are and what their intention is with the land grab and their hidden nukes. And then I asked why are they allowed nukes and why Iran can’t claim nukes when Israel is attacking them? Are Irani people lesser than Israeli people?

I was not concerned before because the world, the pre-Trump, more sensible world was collectively pushing Iran toward sense. And then came Trump emboldening his cronies in Israel and here we are.

Israeli, Irani and American regimes are not anything less than loons. It is a very scary world right now.

I haven't mentioned my approach.

I am just trying to see what the rationale is behind some countries having them and then saying "Well you can't have them".

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate weapon.

Why does the UK have them but say Germany doesn't?

Why does the UK need them if Germany doesn't?

There are many countries worried about potential Russian threats at the moment. Would they feel safer if they had nuclear weapons?

Would we give up our nuclear weapons for security guarantees from the USA that if Russia threatened us, then they would threaten Russia with nuclear weapons?

Nuclear weapons are not a gift for being greater or lesser people. Don’t look to the citizens, as the pp mentioned there will be plenty of nice Iranians who do not deserve the terrible people leading them. Women certainly don’t.

That still doesn’t do away with the terrible prospects of the Iranian regime having nuclear weapons. We need to be serious about that as it’s a game changing outcome as bad as can be ie possible annihilation.

Sure, I have said I would much prefer a world where no country has access to nuclear questions. So my question for you: how do you see that happening? I mean practically happen, not what would happen if every country behaved reasonably and had leaders that cared about other countries (or even their own citizens).