VERSIONS: روسيا اليوم NOTICIAS FREEVIDEO ИНОТВ RTД RSS FIND US ON: YouTube Twitter
On Air Where to Watch Schedule 
breakingnews
Go to main page   Community   Forums   Top News   Should countries be banned from creating nuclear weapons?  
   
Should countries be banned from creating nuclear weapons?
Contributor 26 May, 2008, 16:15 If you havent gotten in the game by now I think you shouldnt be allowed to build nuclear weapons. Banning them completely wouldnt work because the US is involved in creating yet more types of nuclear weapons and you cant let the US have a monopoly in the schoolyard bully area ;-)
quote
0
Sam 26 May, 2008, 16:29 In an Ideal world the answer is yes. Nowever enforcing the ban is another question
quote
0
Mark 26 May, 2008, 16:47 While I do not like nuclear weapons, in the least, it is the right of a nation to pursue technological advances unless it waives it's right to do so through treaty.
quote
0
Vijay 26 May, 2008, 18:49 All actions should have certain standard principles otherwise they have repercussions that are rather unpleasant. Hypocrisy in International laws and actions are the greatest danger to world harmony and peace today. We have seen that on countless occasions such as in Kosovo, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Palestine etc etc. If a country has adequate assurances,nobody is mad enough to develop aggressive weapons unless its intentions are consumerate with its actions.
quote
0
ROBERT U.S. 27 May, 2008, 05:01 Well the issue is will it do this countries more harm than good creating nuclear weapons. like Korea or Iran sure they could cause problems to Russia or U.S. useing one or two bomb but causing problems don't get you what you want. Russia or U.S. have the nuclear capablity to wipe Iran or Korea off the face of the earth like a tiger swipes a fly off. Look at it this way I own a Icecream truck that is one of the best in the world. A chevy P-10 van with nelson cold plate freezers guaranteed to keep the icecream cold in the desert for three days without plugging in. The arabs here have been attacking me here for years by causing me problems any way they can. but causing me problem doesn't get them what they want thanks to the private ownership laws. Even though it would be a great loss to this sociaty by destroying this icecream truck to keep anyone from having it I could do this. They don't make any more like these and they are the only icecream trucks that make money. They are so rare that in a city like New York they only may have ten. But any way this type of countries they just cause problems but they never get what they want. So no they should not be allowed to make nuclear weapons. Crazy as it might sound me not letting this arabs have this Icecream truck hurts them more than the Iraq war.
quote
0
SrpskiCrnogorac 27 May, 2008, 10:40 The question is, whether mankind has matured or not. If it has, then the logic of mutual detrrence demands that every state should have nukes, because then we wouldn´t have wars anymore. But more realistic is, that mankind did not mature and the USA are the best prove for it. Furthermore I can imagine that brainwashed muslim fundamentalists would also be as evil as the USA and really use the nukes for the sake of destruction. Therefore I conclude, that we have to live with these double standards and try to contain proliferation in order to minimize the possibility of a nuclear war, although there are many indicators which suggest that the USA is looking for such a war.
quote
0
paul 27 May, 2008, 22:35 Although I hate all weapons including the nuclears I don´t see what can be the basis of forbidding autonomous nations to organize their own weaponry. There can be arguments used and some diplomatic pressure but in my opinion what is called sanctions is not done and unilaterally (as is the US-habit) even less
quote
0
Sam 28 May, 2008, 06:48 SrpskiCrnogorac I do not think The USA is looking for a nuclear war.With the number of nuclear weapons already on the ground,which is sufficent to end humanity six times over.Only a moron can think such a war can be won.We are at a stage where a nuke does not need to hit your country for you to die.The survivors would envy the dead as they all die slowly.Sad but its true. What USA is doing with the ABMs is showing off to its own population and showing the border up to where they have influence, call it "marking your territory".Russia is opposing this move and building smarter nukes for the same reason which is political. On the question of smaller countries and nuclear weapons.Well I was first against it but now events have proven otherwise. Tell me,had the indian/Pakistani border ever been this peaceful?
quote
0
SrpskiCrnogorac 29 May, 2008, 07:33 "Only a moron can think such a war can be won." Many world leaders were morons and their goal does not need to be a victory, but simply destruction. Hitler would have acted that way or all the religious freaks these days, who are working to fulfil some prophecies. Or remember the Soviet-Chinese border conflict, the chinese build a subway system in Beijing which also serves as a nuke shelter with a capacity of 1 million people. They calculated that they would win a nuclear war against the SU, because of their huge population. And until now, every empire was exclusively based on military supremacy by technological innovations and every weapon has been used. Reagrding US intentions, I have different informations and the missile defence shield and space weapons program needs to be viewed in this context (what russians and chinese are certainly doing).
quote
0
Rad 30 May, 2008, 01:58 Short answer: No. Long answer: Since a one world government does not exist nor would it have any legitimacy, no one can be banned from doing anything and especially not from a piece of paper such as treaty or international law. If they intend to rule and form this one world government with its self serving laws through force as their legitimacy, then we as the continuing victims of their greater Anglo Zionist American Golden Age need the implements of force both for preemption and defense. More for preemption because we should not wait to be attacked, but take the initiative of preemption whenever possible against known aggressors and enemies of humanity. Using a few 18th century weapons against their battleships, carriers, landing craft, tanks, artillery, fighter-bomber aircraft in 1941 should have taught us something about needs and modernization. Given the need. We as victims. Even if it means living a meager existence in poverty and starvation, I will live happily knowing I'm free from the zionist crusader democracy of the Anglo American alliance and that our militaries, partisans, divine wind Kamikaze and other resistance forces have the best, including and especially nuclear, biological, chemical and space based weaponry. They will not allow us to reach parity but even with a few we have the potential to defend our dignity. If we had nuclear weapons with effective delivery sytems, the crusader Anglo American alliance of democracy and Zionism as profiteers and pirates would not have dared invade our homelands with imperialism and colonialism to feed their lust for conquest, oil and other resources, with so little cost to themselves. It is sad, melancholy and inexcusable how we as the victims of this holocaust only manage to resist with only so little cost to the occupier. It is a sign of our obsolescence and need for modernization to bridge the gap of the costs of war to the occupier and also bring total war home to his house and children. Nuclear weapons have the potential in bridging this gap. With the best in weaponry we can defend our families, peoples and lands with the ferocity and dignity of total war. Even if it means destroying ones home and self with the occupier. One little flood, earthquake or discriminatory Anglo "kangaroo court" decision against minorities in the America results in the eruption of race wars and riots amongst the American population. Think what total war will do to bring more of the truth of their fragile powder keg "society" into the open. Unfortunately the Anglo American alliance has not been subjected to total war to comprehend what it really means. Yet the wealthy Anglo Zionists amongst the American population are always preparing and preparing because under their deceptive smiles of indifference they know what they have done and how they are hated everywhere and that at the very least, total war will lead to a complete social breakdown of their fantasy land of Anglo Zionist white rule. They fear the masses of vengeful minorities rampaging their communities. The floods in Louisiana showed the reality of Zionist Anglo democracy in America. Where heartless Anglo White Americans and their Police forces are more than willing to open fire with repeated volleys of gunfire upon starving and thirsty masses of black and minority peoples with their children wishing to escape the confines of their Super Dome concentration camp, crossing a freedom bridge as passage to the promised land. The minorities are enslaved and chained by the Anglo Zionist whites who through their monopoly as the ruling class and with wealth, privately accumulate the best in privately owned weaponry, NBC proof bunker silo homes and other survival oriented resources in discreet retreats to survive and continue to rule what remains. We should learn from this. This matter is of the greatest importance to the masses of peoples around the world who are their victims. While we are taken like a goat to slaughter and distracted in their mazelike slaughter houses, the Anglo Zionist elites and their followers secretly and deviously prepare to survive. This is a topic that does not receive credible publicity in western American Zionist media and for good reason for the benefits of the ruling wealthy class. If NBC warfare was not survivable, there would be no bunkers, retreats, privately owned silo homes, stockpiling and preparations for the "days after" for politicians, elites, wealthy people and their followers in the West. They plan to survive while we are taken to the slaughter houses. Even though I believe the Anglo Americans are more than willing and happy to sacrifice their detested masses of minorities living openly without bunker retreat shelter survival homes and other survival measures. The risk or outbreak of total NBC war will still serve as some deterrence and a good lesson to them when we also possess nuclear weaponry. Man has always been in a perpetual state of war. Even offering "all is well" distractions to say there is no war when all around us we are engulfed with war. We as they will always thrive for and seek the best in weaponry. Even when we achieve nuclear status, we should not be awed into the a false sense of security. There is none. With or without nuclear weapons we will still be targeted by the Anglo Zionist American alliance. Nuclear weapons are not a savior and complete deterrence. Their value is that at least with nuclear and other similar weaponry, we have a potential to increase the costs if not bring the war home to the aggressor and occupier to teach him the meaning of total war. This above any other reason makes such NBC weapons of utmost importance, regardless of cost. In the end there are more of our peoples than of his. With the failure of the trickery of democracy, the only way he can conquer all of us is through the disease of NBC weaponry. The Anglo Zionist American lives in fear of the masses even in his home on the occupied lands of other persecuted civilizations he absurdly calls his own. In such a worldly climate, this means we must remove the wool from our eyes as their slaughterhouse goats and sheep. In addition to having a complete spectrum of NBC weaponry of our own. It is not enough to just have the weapons of all types. We as a peoples to the individual level need to possess the same serious survival mind set. As the targets and victims, we need to be sincerely integrated into the winning strategy. By undertaking preparedness and learning to survive the NBC landscape of total war and its aftermath. In order to reap the fruits of victory when he as our oppressor, the occupier and persecutor of humanity is no more.
quote
0
Misha 3 June, 2008, 15:33 Nations desire to have nuclear weapons because they feel insecure and nukes seem to offer the ultimate security blanket. Any nation, even a bully like the US, has to think twice before it attacks a nuclear-armed nation. Does anyone seriously believe that the US and NATO would try to do to India or China what they did to Serbia and Kosovo? If Iran is seeking nuclear weapons it is because it feels insecure, and why wouldn’t it? Hasn’t the US been openly trying to overthrow Iran’s government (through its policy of “regime change”)? Hasn’t the US been rattling its sabers and threatening war with Iran (or at least “refusing to take the military option off the table”) more or less constantly over the two decades since the Iranian Revolution? Sure the US would like to be able to decide who gets to have nukes and who doesn’t (Example: Israel gets permission to have nukes but Iran doesn’t), but the US has yet to achieve the “unipolar world order” that its leaders fantasies about, where one country is in a position to dictate the terms to the rest of the planet. Nuclear non-proliferation is a worthy goal, of course. But there were two parts to the non-proliferation treaty. The first part was the part that regulated the spread of nuclear weapons and know-how to new countries. The second part was the bit where the world’s major powers committed themselves to reducing (and eventually eliminating) their own nuclear stockpiles. It seems to me that a lot of time has passed and the major powers haven’t gone far enough in meeting their obligations under the treaty. But the world powers aren’t about to get rid of their nuclear deterrent, especially when the US is developing a whole new generation of hitherto unheard of weapons, such as “nuclear bunker buster” and so forth. If the US still relies so heavily upon nuclear weapons to protect its security then it is hypocritical for the US to be preaching to others that they ought not to do the same. Both India and Pakistan have now developed and deployed their own nuclear weapons. The first reaction of US imperialism was to try to “punish” them for their disobedience, like wayward children, through economic sanctions. But the US needs Pakistan’s cooperation to wage its war against Islamic extremism. In the case of India those sanctions were extremely short-lived, as the US is now offering to sell India its nuclear power plants, weapons, etc. Obviously the Americans saw that Russia and China were not about to honor any American sanctions on a country as large and powerful as India. Russia and China were happy as pie to sell India whatever it wanted. So the US sanctions did not have the effect of “punishing” the disobedient child, but rather they only had the effect of punishing US business interests, which were set to lose billions of dollars to their Russian and Chinese competitors. So India and Pakistan have now been conveniently “forgiven,” for their disobedience and don’t think other countries, such as Iran, haven’t noticed that fact. The development of nuclear weapons is truly an area where it is easier to get forgiveness than to get permission. The world’s major powers share a common interest in stopping the global spread of nuclear weapons and know-how. For the US, the “nightmare scenario” is nukes in the hands of 911-style fanatics. The 911 terrorists did not restrict themselves to conventional weapons (fuel-laden aircraft used as cruise missiles) because of any moral compunction against nuclear missiles. They most certainly would have used nukes if they could get their hands on them. Nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists is certainly also a concern of Russia, which has had its own problems with fanatical terrorists (Beslan school hijacking, Moscow apartment bombings, etc). I think the idea has to be that the major powers can co-operate in those spheres where they have common interests, even when there are other spheres where they compete with each other or even have conflict with each other. In this regard leaders who can only see the world through the prism of “black and white” and “good vs. evil” are not helpful, as such an approach hinders the cooperation between nations that is indispensable in today’s shrinking world. The advances in transportation and communications have shrunk the world. Today we are conscious that there is only one human race, and we have to find a framework within which all peoples and nations of the world can live and thrive, in peace and security. The US has proposed a framework that consists of a sort of “one world order” or "unipolar" world order, with only one nation, itself, in charge of the entire globe. Needless to say other countries of the world have pushed back on this idea, as they have serious problems with this vision of a Pax Americana, modeled along the lines of the Ancient Roman Empire. The Russians and Chinese have proposed a multi-polar global framework, where there are not one but several centers of power in the world, each of which acts as a check and balance to the others. According to this view the major powers must deal with each other on the basis of respect for each others’ sovereignty and independence. Disputes between nations must be settled by the application of rule-based criteria (rule of law) instead of the subjective and contradictory whims of only one nation. This view harbors a natural suspicion of the extreme concentration of power into the hands of only one nation, as such power, the more it increases, will also tend to be become corrupted. (For example, 20 years ago could anyone even believe that the United States would be advocating and using torture as a legitimate tool in its interactions with the rest of the world?) If all the power in the world is concentrated in the hands of only one nation (however benign that nation may feel itself to be), then how can the world ever break free from that nation, if it ever becomes corrupted and its power should go over to the side of evil? The once-great Europeans are making a comeback economically (through the EU, the common currency, etc.) But they have yet to form a new center of gravity in the world politically or militarily, due for the most part to Europe’s continuing subordination to the Anglo-American axis. This subordination has reduced the Europeans to little more than pawns for the American game.
quote
0
Vijay 4 June, 2008, 18:59 Sam commented - Tell me, had the Indian/Pakistani border ever been this peaceful? That's a pretty good observation.! The day Iran gets the bomb; I suspect Middle East will be a far less volatile area, only because the balance of terror will be complete. However, the present US.read Neo-Conic leadership is too hung up on Israel and too dependent on the AIPAC and other Jewish lobbies to really have a balanced and realistic view of the situation. Imagine a world where only China or RF or US were to possess the nukes and missiles.?? That’s the scenario replicated on a local stage in mid-east.with the Palestinians as the X FACTOR simply because it’s their land, which has been usurped. As long Israel has the bomb/s and others are NOT ALLOWED for whatever reasons/on whatever threats the region is going to be on the boil. And that’s the scenario all over, be it Korea, or Kosovo or even the Latin America shortly! It may not be long when Venezuela or even Brazil wants one. Then what.??
quote
0
matsobane 7 June, 2008, 20:13 I belive South Africa should have nuclear weapons too.The race is hotting up and Countries like US will only protect their soils during times of war. What is disturbing is that we have people telling people what to do in their own countries.Will we ever tell the US what what to do in their own territories?not to mention in the world where they claim to have the right to force their will. As for the defence shield they are planning,I will say Russia and China watchout.I also advice the Russians to set their own defence shield and military bases in South American countries so that the enemy won't be far during war.
quote
0
Yahshuah Tsidkenu 8 June, 2008, 04:55 Question: Should countries be banned from creating nuclear weapons? Answer: What would Christ Yahshuah tell you?
quote
0
woof 11 June, 2008, 05:54 Anything is possible if you bribe the right person. If Israel can have nuclear, everybody else should be able to have it too. by the way, Israel is the terrorist with no nation. US spending 3 trillions a year there.
quote
0
Nick 16 June, 2008, 01:45 Every country has the right to defend itself if it feels it is threatened, if country needs nuclear bomb to match adversary, it is country duty to have many bombs for self defense. Western keeps hostage others by their arsenal; Iran has to be serious about its defense, Iran has to build many bombs so west would be in check. So other countries have to do. It is dangerous but times are dangerous as you see in the case of Serbia, Iraq and others. If Serbia had bombs no one will dare to touch it. West is bulling others to have its way.
quote
0
MihalMihalich 16 June, 2008, 18:35 Dear Ladies & Gentlemen Nuclear weapon technology is 63 years old! Its not as high tech as you may think. And it is is banned to share or to create by those who have it. Germans designed it, Americans (1945) created and used it, rest of the world simply followed the example as threat appeared at the doorstep. Russians (1949) were labeled as the most evil of all evil because they are “commies” that has to be destroyed at all cost with massive nuclear strike, so Russians were forced to create them. British (1952) had to have it, because after Hiroshima and Nagasaki Americans told them we don’t need “allies” like before and took their Empire. France (1960) had to have it because it was the lesson of war, and since former ally Russia became new threat. China (1964) had to have it because they are evil commies and thus an enemy, and also so no Japan or Britain or America would boss them around like before. Israel (1979) had to have it because their neighbors, why? Read how Israel came to be. I’m not sure who they got the technology and materials and infrastructure…. But it had to be from those above. India (1974) Because of Britain and Pakistan, to secure its young sovereignty. Pakistan (1998) Because of India, and I am not claiming anything, but someone probably helped them to build it, and it should have been someone who wanted nuclear Player close to India/China/Russian boarders. I bet it was not Israel or France… North Korea (2006) Because of the South Korea and the United States. After they tested the device, they came forward and said they want peace with their neighbors in exchange for insignificant financial and energy aid and as peace talks started and N. Koreans promised to shutdown nuclear program S. Koreans all of a sudden demanded disarmament at terms they knew N. Koreans would not accept. So I guess it can be interpreted that United States and S. Koreans would rather have N. Korea as enemy then a friend. All these countries faced serious threat, which led them to build weapon of mass destruction. Iran has a neocon leader who seems to still believe in Islamic revolution and wants to have nuclear electricity & a lot of it, and now their country is on battle map of a few countries that see it as a threat. And this threat will force them to create weapon of mass destruction. Next countries that logically have to have WMD is Japan and Germany. And as soon as they are strong enough they will. And we all are not going to be too happy about it either. Because new variables change the formula. Best Regards
quote
0
Samuel UK 17 June, 2008, 22:35 I think that a country should be allowed full capabilities to make/produce nuclear weaponary, however not actually have a built one. That way if the time came that (God for bid) they were looking to use one, they could get together with the leaders of the world and discuss the implications of using it and how it would be used. Laws will never stop a country from developing them, however it is far easier to prevent them from making them, so through compromise we can hopefully find a way to 'tone-down' the ammount of lage scale bombs owned by so many countries today.If a country has a built bomb it is alot harder to prevent them from using it to get what they want than if they only had reasource to build one, where you can stop them from putting it together. Russia have already begun destroying many of their Chem' weapons and North Korea have 'disposed' of most of theirs (apparently), so the world is willing, however someone need to start the train rolling, and it has to be a superpower like Russia or USA as the smaller countries are too afraid to loose what little protection they may have. For Russia or USA to say "we are disposing are nuclear weaponary, however maintaining our research into them to have the capabilities to make the 'best' one, it would allow other countries to feel safe into doing that awell, so it would be a world wide relief period. Sam Archer- Age 16 - United Kingdome.
quote
0
Sam 18 June, 2008, 17:41 Bravo Samuel !! It is really refreshing seeing the youth especially your age being interested in the international affairs. After all,It affects your generation more then it does mine. I have to say how right you are.You do however know that both Russia and the USA are talking from the side of their mouths and do not really want to disarm at the very least as neither trusts the other. As for the smaller nations,well their thinking is simple.If we have the bomb noone will invade us.
quote
0
zainal 19 June, 2008, 09:23 I agree every nation & country has the right to have nuclear power, energy & Plant for their national defend and electricity for people welfare. I also so don't understand why west so concern and so unlike if iran or iraq has it, however other countries have it r never been commented. This is likely unfair & discriminative. This world is for all people n for doing good. please be nice.
quote
0
next 1 2 3 4 5
POST COMMENT
CAPTCHA
On Air Talent RT mobile Corporate profile Job opportunities Partners Закупки Press releases Advertise with RT All RT sites

Legal disclaimer Feedback Contact us © Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “TV-Novosti”, 2005–2012. All rights reserved.