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?

Sorry nuclear weapons not nuclear questions!

I'd be fascinated to know who you think it is who 'allows' Israel to have nukes.

They famously developed their nuclear weapons independently and in complete secrecy. Nobody showed up and gave them nukes or said "now you' re allowed to have the nukes".

I get that some people don't think Israel should have nukes (I'm inclined to agree) but I don't understand where the idea of 'permission' comes into it.

We need international bodies that make these decisions. And frankly, your idea of Israel developing their own nukes is highly laughable. Event missile and every bullet they dispatching to Gaza and Iran has been developed by some. Even right now the U.K. and US industries are providing them missiles and whatnot.
And if a murderous regime like theirs carriers nukes, I can hardly expect Iran to not get them for self defence. Can you?

I think we need to see disarming Israel of its fumes the same way as we were expecting Iran to follow our instructions, no?
or like I asked before, some nations are allowed to have them despite having loony war criminals at the helm but others aren’t? Is that what you believe in?

@cakeorwine

Again, there's no rationale. It's just the situation.

Why does the UK have them?
Well, it was involved in their development and happened to be in the US's good books when the UK had the means and finances to get them. If we didn't have them already I think there would be no way we would be able to get them now.

Why doesn't Germany?
They were developed during WW2 when Germany was the enemy of the people who did the developing, and after WW2 Germany was banned from having an army, let alone nuclear weapons.

Why aren't countries that feel threatened by Russia allowed to have them?
Russia would object and it would be overwhelmingly difficult to persuade the UN to allow it. (Since Russia and its allies are members of the UN. And I'm pretty sure Trump would veto it as well).

Would the UK give up our weapons if the US offered us a security guarantee?
I fucking hope not! Do you think the US would rush to our assistance if Russia attacked us? The "special relationship" has always been completely one sided. We'd be crazy to think the US would protect us if there was nothing in it for them.

Is it fair that some countries have them and some don't? No. Is life fair? No. (I'm kind of surprised this needs saying to an adult tbh).

You can want the distribution of nuclear weapons to be fair all you want, but if there is no way to make it happen then it's pointless.

And you have not answered how Israel is a stable democracy (when other ideological and war mongering nations in the region are not)? And not a lunatic regime led by war criminals wanted in a lot of countries already?

You’re best off reading the background. Richard Rhodes’ book is exemplary on this.

It's a stable democracy in the sense that it's a democratic country that doesn't have a movement trying to change that (as far as I'm aware). That's it. It isn't a comment on the behaviour of Israel. I'd really appreciate if you stopped twisting everything I post.

And I clearly stated that I was using Israel as an example of why allowing any country to have them is terrible.

Oh, she's been at it from the start, only stopping for a cheese sandwich, good luck with that.

If true, that is a scary thought that no one is trying it change the democratically elected war criminals of Israel.
A very scary thought indeed. You are basically labelling a whole nation supporters of genocidal murderous war criminals!

Do not bring my cheese sandwich in it. If you can keep up, please do or feel free to bow out!

Seriously, I'm out. I can't have a discussion with someone deliberately twisting everything I post.

@Amplepombear No, I'm involved in an argument with someone who lies about what I post and distorts everything else. Feel free to describe that in any way you want, no doubt it will because I'm secretly a massive fan of Netanyahu and salivate at the thought of dead babies.

I probably agree with far more of your opinions than I disagree with, but obviously nothing other than someone agreeing that Israel is the great satan and should be eradicated from the face of the earth will be good enough for you (and even if I did post that, I will have worded it it an a way that is unacceptable to you).

I won't reply to you again.

I refuse to believe this about the Israeli people but I, and the rest of the civilised world, firmly believe Israeli regime to be the great Satan and the devil incarnate, etc etc. In other words, ICC has a warrant out for this genocidal land grabbing regime and you are trying to have us believe we should consider them representatives of a stable democracy while Irani regime is the devil incarnate. I say both are. And both must be reigned in.

Please feel free to drop back in as I would quite like to see your logic.

Why should a country care what the UN thinks?

If a country wants to develop nuclear weapons and has the money to do so, what power does the UN have?

Is it going to attack that country? Is it going to do a resolution that says "We, the UN, don't think you should have them".

We all know that UN resolutions can be ignored and defied.

And putting your own country first regardless of what others think is de rigeur at the moment.

From the BBC:
Last week, the IAEA said in its latest quarterly report that Iran had amassed enough uranium enriched up to 60% purity - a short, technical step away from weapons grade, or 90% - to potentially make nine nuclear bombs. That was "a matter of serious concern", given the proliferation risks, it added.

It doesn't need that for any civilian programme.

Iran also had undeclared nuclear sites, until inspectors turned them up. Why might that be?

It doesn't really matter in the long run who has nukes. Whilst capitalism remains the major religion of this planet, people will carry on killing people over land and resources for the foreseeable future. Along the way some bits of land will become wastelands and lots of people will die but human life will carry on. Eventually humans will either wipe themselves out or finally learn to live together, but none of us will be around for that so there's not much point in worrying about it.

@Noodledog is advocating that we should all suck it up that life is unfair and has always been. So we might as well stop trying.
Not gonna happen anytime soon thankfully.

'Israelite' seems a very strange choice of word.

So when you say you want things to be fair do you mean Iran has nuclear weapons?

And that is the evidence required to go out and do an all-out attack? Without any international collaboration and UN involvement? Is it Iraq all over again? Is the world being run by humans or animals?

I keep repeating this like a broken radio but who wouldn’t want to brew nukes if they had the maniacal Netenyahu threatening them while the Western nations sent him advanced weapons?

Why are you not worried about Israeli nukes and the fact that Netenyahu is a war criminal beating this drum? And Trump is the one at his back?

U.K. will pay eventually the price for this when proportionately more displaced people cross the channel and reach here. Pretty sure Blair made good money off of his chicanery.

I have said at least 3 times by now: we must disarm Israel, we must disarm Iran.

Apologies for that. It’s my autocorrect.