Yah the west chokes and dies of paranoia but so does every single other Government on earth. If everyone had nukes and one country used them the others would have to respond. Even if the countries tried to hold back and contain the situation nukes would be flying all over. Every single organized Government would be destroyed. Then rebel groups and militia would cease nukes and use them recklessly in every conflict they get involved in. Yes the human race would likely survive but not by much.

The whole earth would be a big ball of fire. You actually think a nuclear Armageddon would make the world peaceful? lol their would be no world left to be peaceful. Look at the Middle East or Africa as perfect examples. They hate one another and they attack one another and Western Imperialism and Eastern powers like China and Russia keep the world from spiraling out of control. If you give all the countries nukes they will destroy one another and the whole world for that matter.

Saudi Arabia would nuke everyone around them as would Iran, Syria and every other country in the mid east. The Western Imperialists would try to control the situation like they always do, but they would get drawn into using nukes as well, pretty soon every global power would be destroyed.

Ever seen the TV show Jericho? That is what would happen to every country on earth but far worse. Instead of each town fighting one another with assault rifles and tanks they would be blowing one another off the map with nukes. The world would fall into utter chaos and anarchy, a system of Government would never be attainable from that point on.

Well I did say any means necessary and that does include diplomacy. However which carrot do you honestly think is good enough to deter a Government from aquiring nukes? Nuclear weapons are an insurance policy and once a country has them nobody is likely to invade or do anything that could risk them being used. The Iranian people themselves couldn't even topple the revolutionary guard if they had nukes, the international community would not allow those nukes to fall into terrorist hands and that means they would essentially be forced to help keep Iran's Government in power.

Their is a reason Pakistan gets so much aid money and is protected so much. Pakistan can support terrorists they can kick Nato troops out of the country they can attack almost anyone without fear of retribution. The US will continue to send huge amounts of aid and will continue to be Pakistan's bitch, why? Because Pakistan has nukes, if the US were to try and disarm Pakistan it would be a huge and very risky deal.

Those saying the US or any power could safely disarm a nuclear power drastically under estimates the nuclear powers. Pakistan's nukes are in multiple secure locations across the country. Pakistan has delivery systems capable of hitting many nearby countries, if they couldn't directly fly a warhead into Delhi or Mumbai they could easily give a nuclear device to the ISI or Taliban and they could possibly blow up almost any target.

Their is absolutely nothing you could give Iran to deter them from building a warhead, nothing. Sanctions also will not work because Iran knows that the sanctions are only temporary and once they have nukes they will either be lifted or aid will start flowing in and the international community will actually have to work with them regardless of what Iran does.

A nuke is essentially a get of jail free card, an insurance policy that will protect your Government as long as you don't use one. The threat of using one and the fear it puts into your enemies is enough to deter any kind of attack within or outside your country. It also guarantees financial stability!

Why doesn't everyone just give all their nukes to North Korea? I'm sure Kimmy will keep 'em safe.

"However which carrot do you honestly think is good enough to deter a Government from aquiring nukes?"

None, however, free trade is good enough to deter the population from supporting such a Government. Trade embargoes and sanctions do nothing but support tyrannical states. Cuba, for example, would not be in a communist dictatorship if America hadn't blocked trade with them.

so why is america the only country that should be allowed to have nukes?
a better suggestion would be to destroy all nuclear weapons before they can cause harm... but of course thats a childish fantasy

Nukes are bad simple as that, but I'll read your massive wall of text and analyze it of course.

No country should have nukes, but a world where no country has nukes is a fantasy. Fact is if every major country fully disarmed others would equip themselves. Fighting a nuclear country with a conventional army is futile.

Right now their are several countries with nukes. So far these countries are relatively safe and won't collapse and don't pose a massive imminent threat. Even communist China isn't dumb enough to use a nuke, but if we allow more countries to acquire them its only a matter of time before a dip shit gets his hands on one.

The main powers Russia, China, US, Britain will do everything in their power to prevent a nuclear apocolypse but if you get enough nukes out in the wrong hands even their determination to control the situation will fall apart. If Washington DC or Moscow or Beijing or London were nuked the people of those countries would demand nuclear retribution and no matter what the Governments do to try and calm and defuse the situation hell will break loose.

Now that countries have nukes the biggest priority for international security is to contain the situation and prevent nuclear devices from being used by any and all means necessary!

who determines what the right and wrong "hands" are? america and europe?

@Joelcool7
you have a very wrong view on eastern countries. You think they are all nazi germany waiting to explode. But No country has the balls to bomb another country with also has nuclear weapons. The biggest use of nuclear weapons isnt that they can kill hundreds of thousands in seconds, but that they use FEAR to prevent such events. Fear of nuclear weapons have prevented more wars and saved more lifes than they ever took. And its because of that that all countries should have them. No one would dare striking against no one.

And as much as hard you find this to believe, eastern countries arent savages and madmen who just want to kill everyone around them. They are capable of stability and peace ( as much hard as you find this to believe) and they DONT always need America or England to ''free'' them, because they usually end up making things a lot worse

USA arrogance is unreal.

So USA can have atomic weapons but not the others countries? Iran having nuclear weapons would just defend them vs Israel and USA. Like North Korean having nuclear weapons is not any threat for the world , it just defend them.

For the moment, it's more like United States are the biggest threat for peace in the world, I am far from being an america hater but USA have been involved in more wars recently than almost any other country.

I'm gonna say it simple fair and square, feel free to hate on me:

The US has nukes, so it's not their bloody place to dictate who can and who can't have nukes, and just threatening to bomb the shit out of countries that don't want to bend to your will is a retarded way of trying to deal with things.

And they need to learn to accept that not everyone outside of The UK & The USA is a terrorist or a madman.

Simple: US =/= world.

That being said, nukes are for pussies, every nuke should be dismantled, and we should fight as men again!