• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does USA have the right to have atomic bombs ?

Does USA have the right to have atomic bombs ?YY


  • Total voters
    52

Medusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
39,861
Reaction score
7,852
Location
Turkey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
inspired by X's thread.thanks for voting.
 
Without a context this is rather fruitless.

In terms of the NPT, the US is listed as a nuclear-weapon state. By interpretation and association of the agreement we have the right to have nuclear weapons. It all comes down to how many and what other agreements we make with other nuclear-weapon states.

BTW as advice, the terminology of the question is misleading. There is a difference between an atomic, or nuclear fission, bomb and a hydrogen, or nuclear fusion, bomb. The easiest way to discuss the subject is the terminology as listed in the NPT and reference the weapons as a whole by nuclear weapons.
 
Yes.

The U.S. and only the U.S. in my opinion.
 
Without a context this is rather fruitless.

In terms of the NPT, the US is listed as a nuclear-weapon state. By interpretation and association of the agreement we have the right to have nuclear weapons. It all comes down to how many and what other agreements we make with other nuclear-weapon states.

BTW as advice, the terminology of the question is misleading. There is a difference between an atomic, or nuclear fission, bomb and a hydrogen, or nuclear fusion, bomb. The easiest way to discuss the subject is the terminology as listed in the NPT and reference the weapons as a whole by nuclear weapons.

"Atomic bomb" is a long-standing term meaning any sort of nuclear weapon. It's a bit old fashioned these days, but I'm pretty sure it was used in that context in the poll. And certainly we have a right to have them because there is no law or principle that denies us the ability to have them on either moral or practical grounds.

It would have been very unpleasant for us had we not defeated Germany before they built a working atomic bomb. And we were then blessed by a lot of German brain power that enabled us to complete a working bomb before Japan got their nuclear program out of the laboratory stage. A working bomb in the hands of the Japanese prior to the end of WWII would also have been a very grim scenario for the USA. And if we had not built sufficient nuclear weapons to achieve deterrent parity with the USSR soon after WWII ended, the world might be a very different place, and not in a good way, than what it is.

The world is a much safer place because the USA has a sufficient nuclear arsenal and ability to use it on very short notice.
 
From a legal standpoint, there doesn't seem to be anything prohibiting the US (or pretty much any other nation) having nuclear weapons.

I think an more interesting question is whether there could ever be a viable situation where it would be legally and morally acceptable to actually use them?
 
inspired by X's thread.thanks for voting.

Of course we have a right to them. Any country has a right to them. The trouble comes when a country that is considered a menace to others is or has acquired them and that;s where negotiation comes into play in the way of sanctions or punishment is administered to pressure said country away from nuclear arms.
 
From a legal standpoint, there doesn't seem to be anything prohibiting the US (or pretty much any other nation) having nuclear weapons.

I think an more interesting question is whether there could ever be a viable situation where it would be legally and morally acceptable to actually use them?
so vote other please
 
inspired by X's thread.thanks for voting.

Of course it does. It is, however, supposed to run down its arsenal, when that becomes possible. With proliferation on the increase and world security structure becoming less stable, the reduction will have to wait. As a matter of fact the probability that the weapons will have to be used is increasing steadily.
 
I don't think that "right" is a good word. When it comes to nuclear weapons when the cat is out of the bag...there's no putting it bad in.

That's the whole point of preventing nuclear weapons from spreading. For one, at this point all of the more stable nations in the world have them and those gaining them currently are typically not nearly as stable. Pakistan anyone?

Second of all, the US having them does act as a deterrent from others using them. N Korea would never launch a nuke at the south because it would never be worth the cost...the US has the means to ensure no one in the North survives.

It's not a pretty picture, it's not a utopia, but real life never is.
 
so vote other please
I voted Yes to the actual question. I commented further because reality is more complex than any yes/no question.
 
why ? Mr fascist imperialist ?

I think only the U.S. (and to be fair the British and French) have shown they can be trusted to act responsibly with them.
 
We invented them.

If any determination is ever made to the effect that we don't have a right to have them, I'd like to see who's going to try to take them away from us.
 
inspired by X's thread.thanks for voting.

There's is no all powerful being or entity that grants rights to individuals, groups or countries. What one has in terms of economic, political and military power to force, is what one has. No one can prevent the US from obtaining or retaining nuclear weapons. But countries like Iran can be destroyed, much in the way that Iraq, Libya and Syria have been destroyed. Such may prevent a nuclear power that others find not to be worth the trade off.
 
Yes.

The U.S. and only the U.S. in my opinion.

Just gonna be honest I'm sure I don't agree with much with what this guy says but I 100% agree with this. We should have them all and if you want protected by them you need to get on our team and pick out a stable. I think it's very scary that any country but us (and maybe UK) has nuclear weapons. Nuclear power however I'm totally cool with.
 
Ethically, no one has a right to have weapons that can only be used for genocidal level killing and destruction.
 
why ? Mr fascist imperialist ?

Lots of reasons. For the one, because of their destructive potential, the most morally justifiable reason to have a nuclear weapon is to prevent as few of them from existing as possible. Through historical circumstance, the United States is the nation best qualified to fulfill that function (starting with the fact we invented it first).

For example, as the most economically and militarily developed country in the world, the United States can approach most relationships and international problems from a position of strength. That strength makes it less likely we will be tempted to use nuclear weapons for a reason other than stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
 
Last edited:
I voted yes, although the question is quite broad. America created the weapon and is, by international treaty, a legitimate nuclear power. From a philosophical standpoint though, its hard to defend any nations "right" to a weapon of such unlimited power and destructive ability.
 
inspired by X's thread.thanks for voting.
No, because no such right exists for anyone to have.

It is right for us to have nukes, but it's not a right.
 
No one has a "right" to gain nuclear weapons.
The US probably has the most legitimacy to be holding nuclear weapons of all nations out there - but there is no such thing as a right to nuclear weapons.
 
We invented them.

If any determination is ever made to the effect that we don't have a right to have them, I'd like to see who's going to try to take them away from us.

WHO are you ? WHO INVENTED IT ?
 
No one has a "right" to gain nuclear weapons.
The US probably has the most legitimacy to be holding nuclear weapons of all nations out there - but there is no such thing as a right to nuclear weapons.

Wtf!!!! The only country to have ever used them, and on a civilian target to boot, gets your vote of legitimacy, I never thought that would make me wish for a god. Jesus Christ, can such freaks really exist?
 
No one has a "right" to gain nuclear weapons.
The US probably has the most legitimacy to be holding nuclear weapons of all nations out there - but there is no such thing as a right to nuclear weapons.

Oh ****, that figures.
 
Back
Top Bottom