Nuke weapons in the wrong hands?

Desperado	Nukes are a mistake by themselves. There isnt a RIGHT hand for nukes.

Kee	Nobody has the right to own and use nukes. America like the ancient Roman Empire thought that it has the mandate from heaven to determine what is just and right. Basically the big bully mentality.

badjanssen	the right hands are ours...if you disagree, then go live in n korea....

dapperflapper	Thats false actually, north korea has an undisclosed amount. odds are they have more, also.. its only takes a few to destroy the world. Catch up on your reading. Besides, we are the civil country here. someone needs to go back to school.....

cliffpotts2005	Sure, we developed the first one. And, you are right, they should be outlawed. Eventually they will be scrapped, but right now we are in this mess.

Mark	There are a lot of people in the world who would like to use nuclear weapons against the US and our allies. Theirs are the wrong hands.

virtualscientist01	George Bush is the wrong hands for nukes.

RunningOnMT	Applying the rules of fair play under which most of us have been raised one person does not have a right to interfere with another doing what he does himself. Therefore if I carry a gun, I don't have a right to tell you you can't. The advent of nuclear weapons has changed all that. The destructive force so overwhelming and so terrible that it it forces a nation possessing these weapons to discard this concept. All the rules have changed. Normally in law you don't have a right to take action against another for what you perceive to be a threat. Someone has to actually infringe on your rights or harm you for you to be justified in taking action against them. When we were developing those first atomic bombs I don't think anyone had an inkling of just how terrible these weapons would be. We were at war seeking to defeat an enemy with whatever means were available. Having developed that means first we became for that time the most powerful nation in the world. . Naturally being the sole possessor of this technology we would not willingly share it with ANYONE. Of course this didn't last long as the USSR soon had acquired the technology to develop a bomb of their own. The first principle of war is to inflict as much damage on your enemy as possible while sustaining the least damage yourself. The strong ideological differences between our nation and the soviet union left us with the very distinct possibility that our two nations might one day be at war with each other. At that point it became a matter of self defense, and the nuclear race was on. We could not allow ourselves to be outdone because we weren't willing to surrender our position of power, especially to a nation whose principles differed so greatly from our own. What can be done at this point? You can't take back the stolen technology. It becomes a stalemate and you are forced to take some solace in the mutually assured destruction theory (MAD). Both our nations knew that for either to unleash such weapons on the other would mean certain annilation of itself as well as others. The Korean war left us with a dillemma. We had virtually wiped out all of North Korea when the Chinese stepped in. Due to the overwhelming size of it's army, there was no way to take the Chinese on without the great "equalizer". But China was an ally of the USSR. To use such weapons against the Chinese would certainly bring the USSR into the picture and result in MAD. So for the first time the United States was forced to back down on an issue of principle because of the risk of worldwide destruction. We don't like backing down very much, and no rational person can say our position was wrong. Clearly North Korea supported by China was the aggressor and obviously the people of South Korea are better off today than their neighbors to the north living under this insane dictator. So we compromised with an enemy for the sake of all. So now China has nuclear weapons, and India, and Israel, and the UK. We all know very well the almost assured result of using them. We can't disarm if we wanted to. Chinas army by sheer force of numbers is overwhelming. Our existence as a free and democratic country depends on our means to resist an enemy whose ideology demands we succumb to their form of government. Now we have two new countries developing these weapons. One has the nuclear capability but is still developing delivery systems; the other is working tirelessly to develop them, both are ruled by mad men. Their stated goals and their history give no assurance that they would exercise restraint in the use of these weapons for the sake of mankind. The security of the world demands that we prevent these nations from acquiring these weapons. This is complicated even more by the fact that these countries have relationships with countries already possessing nukes. And so we are in a delicate position teetering between gunboat diplomacy and once again compromise with ideological enemies. Common sense demands that we use any means possible to eliminate North Koreas and Irans nuclear capability. Is it fair? Well lets go back to the simple example of you being a person who for self defense needs to carry a gun. Now you are in a public place when someone you know enters and he is also armed. Now suppose this person has made very serious and vicious threats against your friends. Suppose also that you know this person is mentally unstable and in the past has committed various crimes of violence. And now here is this person waving his gun around making threats. If you had the physical means to subdue him would you? What if he pointed his gun at your head? Would you say if you reached out suddenly grabbing his arm, dropped him with a good swift kick, and took his gun away that you were not being fair and not recognizing his rights?