Oh no, no additionnal info this time.
Well actually I guess I could tell you that it would be interesting to link it to "places and forms of power" (and other notions too, but, meh, less interesting, so I don't advise it).
I'd usually add that you can do a comparison with an English-speaking country, but ... it's an international problem ... I don't see how we can not mention any in the discussion.
Anyway, the ball is in your court now.
First of all I see That the states who sign the non-proliferation traity and have the nuclear wearponry are The USA, china, France, Great Britain an finally Russia have the nuclear wearponry and stattes who don't sign but develop the nuclear wearponry are pakistan, India ,Israel and finnaly North corea . And finnaly we have the states who don't have the nuclear wearponry and who don't search to product they are 180 and I think they are the more smart states of the word because they are assured of not being attacked by a country that has officialy the nuclear weaponry . I think that it is very dangerous that all states have the nuclear wearponry because if one states who have this wearponry use it, it could be the third world war but that'why I think certain states are not allowed to have the nuclear wearpon because they aren't confident states and they can use it . Moreover the most inteligent things is to allowed certain states because the nuclear wearponry is a certain way of detterence against terrorisme for example.
ReplyDeleteTo conclude only sure states should have the nuclear wearponry because it could be the third wolrd .
Thanks :)
DeleteHowerver, there are a few points where I have to disagree.
You state that the states (states, stating, humour, ha-ha. I'm very sorry) who do not have nuclear weaponry are sure not to be themselves nuked, yet, the fact that Japan did not have it didn't stop the US from bombing them in 1945! While it is true that international politic has changed since then, I am not so sure that being unarmed is a guarantee of safety...
On the subject of nuclear weapon as a dissuasive weapon against terrorisme, I think it really isn't convincing. I mean, who would retaliate to guerrilla-attacks with NUKES! ? Terrorists are probably not dumb enough to believe such a threat. (Plus, they already blow themselves up, so they may not even care).
With that said, thought, I'm not sure what will happen if they start messing around with north korea. These guys aren't exactly the kings of pacifism, subtelty and stability...
Finally, the problem with allowing only trustworthy states to have access to nuclear weaponry is: who can decide if a stae is "safe" ? South Korea is freaked out by the fact that NK has it, but i bet China would tell you that there is no risk at all...
What do you think ? (oh, and, sincere apologies for the rant, I am quite talkative...)
I believe that nuclear weaponry is a major power since there are many war and problems between countries around the world . However this power shouldn't be use as an attack weaponry to kill a full country but he should be use to protect the country that is threatened by other countries . So as for me I think that some countries should be allowed to have nuclear weaponry : feeble countries like some Asian countries or Island or powerful countries like United states of America
ReplyDeletebecause this country fight for peace ! Nevertheless , countries at war shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weaponry because it will be to dangerous for the civilian population .
But then again, who has the right to decide which countries "fight for peace" ?
DeleteFor example, I am a bit disturbed to see that you think that the USA are "worthy" of having nuclear power, when they are the only ones so far who actually used it.
This question is really hard to answer, because, nobody can allow a country to have nuclear weaponry. Actually, nuclear weaponry is a major power to the countries who have it, but can be also dangerous, and if all the countries had it could create the war. Anyway it's difficult to know which state can have nuclear weaponry and which can not, how can we be sure that the country who have it will not one day use it against another one, and a country who doesn't have nuclear weaponry will not one day be attacked?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it's a massive weapon that can be used to defend and to attack, so of course country who are in war shouldn't be allowed to have it, however country that today are considered as """peace countries""" shouldn't use it, because then it can create a massacre and kill a lot of innocent people.
In my opinion, all the countries shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weaponry, because it would be a real disaster, for the humans, and for the Earth. First of all, nuclear weaponry could create rivality between different countries to possess the most powerful nuclear weaponry, rivality that could turn into wars. Then, a nuclear war would have terrible consequences for the innocent people who can be hit by nuclear attacks or radiations caused by it. Without talking about that, nuclear bombs, for example, are terribly noxious for the Earth, the place where we live, and using weapons like nuclear bombs could destroy it little by little. We could also say that it's a good way for the countries to protect themselves, however I think that there is no need to threaten other countries whith nuclear weaponry to try to get the peace. To conclude, I would say that I hope that the different countries won't use any nuclear weaponry anymore, because we all know that the consequences are really too serious, for everybody.
ReplyDeleteNobody can judge who should have nuclear weapon or not. It's only a political purpose and a tremendous stake for the whole world. Of course the states who already got the nuclear weapon will be against when other country would try to get it. This weapon provides the most powerful threat to those nations. We already saw the power of this weapon during the second world war and it is important to mention that today nukes are far more powerful than before. During the cold war the tension between the USA and the USSR was on top because of the threat that nuclear destruction represents.
ReplyDeleteThe utilisation of this weapon is not in the mind of any president today but it shall be considered in few decades when all the energy will be used all around the earth, when this day will come the nuclear threat will be again the ultimate weapon that we are all afraid of. I think that not considering nukes is the bad way to think war because it has been used during war and it can be used again in future because war never changes.
Stop playing Fallout and get to work ! : )
DeleteNuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons ever developed. The right to possess these weapons is an issue of serious contention in the international community. So, should all countries be allowed to have nuclear weapon?
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, non-proliferation treaties exist within the United Nations, and between countries, such as between the United States and Russia. The most comprehensive, the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), consists of a pledge by current nuclear weapon states to reduce their nuclear stockpiles and achieve nuclear disarmament in return for non-nuclear weapon states not developing such weapons. While some countries and institutions are eager to see a reduction in nuclear weapon stockpiles, others are eagerly seeking to obtain them. North Korea has developed their first functional nuclear weapon, and Iran is often accused of attempting to develop their own. Such countries have met with international condemnation. This has led to the question of whether other countries should also have a right to nuclear armament. Some are worried that weapons developed by less wealthy states are more likely to fall into the hands of terrorists, either through a lack of secure facilities or through being sold.
So here are some points in favor of having nuclear weapons: all countries have a right to defend themselves with nuclear weapons, or such as nuclear weapon give states valuable agenda-setting power on the international stage. Nuclear weapons also serve to defuse international conflicts and force compromise. On the other hand here are some points against: the right of self-defense must be exercised in accordance with international law, or the threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of rogue states and terrorists increases as more countries possess them. Possessing nuclear weapons will also be counter to the peaceful interests of states.
The nuclear arms race is one of the major stakes of our society since World War II.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, during this period, Americans and Germans where needed a way to make nuclear bombs.
The research’s where concentrated in two secret military projects (The American project was named “Manhattan Project” and German project was “Uranium Project”).
As we know it, the “Manhattan project” was the first to succeed and gave rise to the “Trinity test” on July 16, 1945 as the first nuclear test carried by U.S army.
After the fall of Third Reich and the victory of Americans in Japan (Acquired at the price of two nuclear bombings which destroys Hiroshima and Nagasaki), World War II was over but Cold War began.
It is during Cold War that began nuclear proliferation when Russians did exploded their first nuclear bomb on August 29, 1949.
After that, many governments decided to undertake a nuclear military project.
It is in this way that United-Kingdom, France and China became nuclear powers between 1952 and 1964.
To stop nuclear proliferation, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT was ratified by 190 countries including the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China (The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council).
However, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel are countries with nuclear weapons who are not are not members of NPT.
In this context, the question “All countries should be allowed to have nuclear weaponry “is legitimate.
In fact, if nuclear weapon is so coveted, it is for his power of destruction (No weapon in Earth have a better firepower than nuclear bomb) and for the fear inspiring by his death rate.
If a global conflict begin, all army armed with nuclear weapons can use it to protect themselves.
But such a thing would be madness because a nuclear war would kill a great part of humanity and destroy the civilization.
It is on this principle that nuclear deterrence is founded.
Nuclear deterrence help to prevent war between the great powers because they are conscious about the risk of nuclear apocalypse.
In that logic, nuclear arm have the power to make peace and stability by using fear.
I don’t think if it is possible to say who can have nuclear bombs because I can’t see someone with the power to decide that.
However, some people are able of inhumanity and, for me, more nuclear weapons are made and more monsters of this world have the opportunity to get it to kill innocent people.
Diplomacy is a better way to make the peace in the world.