Do countries like Iran and North Korea have the right to protect themselves against US aggression by developing nuclear weapons?

[msc545]

The US has never invaded a country that has nuclear weapons because the US does not want to be on the receiving end of those devices. DO you agree that the development of nuclear weapons is the only certain insurance policy against US aggression?

Updates

1 y

Which German scientists that we kidnapped had a big role in building the atomic weapons

[KrakenAttackin]

It's not about "right", it's about power. Countries might have the moral right (from their perspective) to develop nuclear weapons, but from a U. S. perspective we may believe we have the "right" to prevent them.

Preventing nuclear proliferation has been at the core of U. S. foreign policy since the end of WWII. Having so many foreign bases and treaty commitments was the trade-off, as the U. S. was/is the guarantor of protection, negating the need for smaller countries to develop atomic arms. This policy has been incredibly expensive but it has largely worked.

[msc545]

Yes, except for countries that do not wish to have US bases and interventions, nuclear weapons are the way to guarantee that there will probably be no US invasion. This is particularly important for countries with economic systems other than Capitalism, mainstream religions other than Christianity, or natural resources that the US might covet, such as manganese, niobium, strontium, tantalum, tin, and most recently lithium and others.

[KrakenAttackin]

... which is why the U. S. is always poised to strike. Other States wishing to develop nuclear weapons will likely suffer preemptive convention attack by the U. S. and NATO. Think back to when the Israelis attacked the Iranian breeder reactor (1982?)

[msc545]

Truth. Also explains why countries that are developing nuclear weapons go to such lengths to hide the development of them.

[exitseven]

No, the Iranians believe that when you die you get 47 virgins. Death means nothing to them. They would gladly nuke another country to get to those virgins.
Little Rocket Man is a tyrant who would lob a nuke at his southern neighbor just for laughs

[msc545]

@exitseven Sometimes what you write is absurd. This is one of those times.

[exitseven]

@msc545 What would keep Iranian terrorists from detonating a nuke in Times Sq. in New Years Eve>?

[msc545]

They are not suicidal.

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO😎

[exitseven]

@msc545 Tell that to all the people that died at the World Trade Center.

[msc545]

Nobody used the nuke at the world trade center

[exitseven]

no but the hijackers all knew it was a one way trip/

[msc545]

That was quite different.

[exitseven]

how so? they were suicide bombers. They ended up dead and took 3000 Americans with them.

[msc545]

it did not destroy their country and everyone in it.

[dustybiker2]

In this unique situation, they might be our only hope to rid the US of the poisonous snare in the end. Let them do their thing? (Sarcasm) They are going to anyway. Who is the US to tell others what to do? The grown up table decides together what is good for the entire world when it comes to incredibly damaging inventions such as nukes. There are more sane countries than the other way around. Unfortunately the US is the other way around at the moment.

[purplepoppy]

Nuclear weapons aren't a big threat to America. Should things kick off America would hit koreas launch sites long before they had a chance to fire. Russia and China are problematic simply because there's too many to hit.

[msc545]

Other countries could and would use tactical nuclear weapons on US troops if the US were to invade them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

[msc545]

This possibility has a lot to do with why the US will not invade countries that have nuclear weapons.

[Subtle_Luminescence]

I mean, USA is known to be the invader in many middle Eastern countries and responsible for death of millions. They're right to be vary of USA and put themselves in such a defensive position.

[msc545]

Truth, sadly.

[NathanDavis]

NOBODY has a right to develop, nor use... nuclear weapons

it's not a matter of law... it's a compromise you make and a risk you take in a very VERY grey area

[msc545]

ok, so should the US get rid of its nuclear weapons?

[NathanDavis]

the USA is already compromised by owning developed nuclear weapon... which is completely different territory

the USA does not have the right to own nuclear weapons either and with things as they are right now, to get rid of them is way more riskier than keeping them

[msc545]

So it is ok for the US to have them but no other country should be able to?

[NathanDavis]

do you really want to reduce, minimize and oversimplify something as nuclear warfare to " is it okay or not okay " ?

[msc545]

Deciding whether or not you object to other countries having nuclear weapons is binary - a simple yes or no. No need to obfuscate and misrepresent it by characterizing it as "nuclear war" which is not what I said at all.

[NathanDavis]

having and acquiring weapons are not the same thing

these are two completely different things

[msc545]

ok. How about "BUILDING nuclear weapons" ? And why do these distinctions matter except to serve as distractions for you?

[NathanDavis]

distinctions do matter, because the implications change the approach to it...

very different questions, are very different answers too

which is the issue with your bait and switch... flawed logic ensues

as for building nuclear weapons, that just one of the few ways in which you acquire nuclear weaponry... so far, as it is... none of the countries who own nuclear weaponry have attacked any other country with them, at least not since the USA did what it did under very different circumstances as well

that's the compromise that the world has reached... and for as as it works, it should stay that way, which means... no more countries should acquire nor build more nuclear weaponry, especially not countries who are belligerent by nature which I know, sounds stupid... very stupid, because there's already belligerent countries WITH nuclear weapons, but oh well...

nobody said it was simple...

[msc545]

Yes, and of course the US is not belligerent so it's okay for us to have literally hundreds of nuclear weapons, correct?

[msc545]

A country can simply build, buy or steal nuclear weapons and there is no other way to get them. It's not rocket science to figure this out.

[NathanDavis]

actually it is... you would still need a rocket to use them more properly and efficiently, nowadays

[msc545]

Stop the deliberate misunderstanding.

[NathanDavis]

stop the switch and bait...

[msc545]

There is no switch and bait - I am not selling anything. If you think there is, please describe it.

[NathanDavis]

it's whataboutism

[msc545]

I don't see where I did that - please indicate where I did

[Anonymous]

This is why I supported Tulsi in 2020, she was the only candidate that understood that the US can't go around overthrowing dictators we don't like than expect countries like north Korea to give up nuclear weapons. Whether we like it or not, those countries do have the right to have nuclear weapons, we're not the world's police and it's the only way we don't go in and carry out a regime change, which most of the time increases the suffering of citizens.

[Sevenpointfive]

i don't think they are the answer. i don't feel safer with them. by the time one is shot at or dropped on you it's too late anyway

[msc545]

Yes true, but my point was that just having them deters the US from invading - like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam and Korea.

[Sevenpointfive]

if i had a nuke i wouldn't tell you. that's poker. it's almost guaranteed that everyone has nuclear weapons unless the CIA made it a point to put in spies to make sure they don't. i don't have that info, but i don't doubt it's there. i think it would surprise you.

[msc545]

That is a good point, but I think deterrence is the main benefit of having (or saying you have) nukes. You cannot use them unless you really are into suicide...

[Sevenpointfive]

well putin said he had them. and we got a lot of media of how the usa did some satellite imagery of hot spots trying to detect small amounts of radiation bullshit proving he didn't. i'm sure a lot of people were at ease over it. but let's never forget that we didn't create the nuclear bomb.

[msc545]

We didn't create it? Uh - who did?

[Sevenpointfive]

the germans created nuclear weapons. the u. s. are the only ones to use them

[msc545]

So I suppose the Manhattan project was just some big scam?

[Sevenpointfive]

absolutely not. you can totally kidnap a german to build a bomb for the u. s. and steal the glory.

[msc545]

So yes, I suppose technically the Germans built the bomb. Which German scientist is it that you think was responsible for that?

[Sevenpointfive]

i think it was a group of scientists. the ideas combined built that bomb. or you could watch the movie and believe that's what really happened

[zagor]

The invasion of Iraq kind of justified that attitude. It was a terrible mistake, evil though Saddam was.

[DrPepper12]

Not the only but it sure does help!

We GUARANTEED Ukraines security and urged them to give up their nukes... How'd that work out?

We should be backing them 1000%. They trusted us.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Sadly, yes, but rogue nuclear actors must be brought to heel by the U. N. or if they use their weapons, an alliance of peaceful but potent nations.

[msc545]

Why?

[beefcakebradybatson]

I don't want some POS who wakes up feeling bad deciding to nuke the planet.

[msc545]

The UN is not going to stop anyone, and there is no "alliance of peaceful but potent nations".

[RealMarek]

I don’t know about rights, but they certainly have the incentive.

[Anonymous]

maintaining peace sometimes involves preparing for war

[Anonymous]

Yes, of course.

[Pterodon]

Nope

[msc545]

Why not?

[Pterodon]

We’re not aggressors

[msc545]

You should discuss that with the Vietnamese, or the Iraqis, or Afghans, or with the people in about 30 other countries the US has invaded and trashed.