Should some countries have the right to tell other countries that they cannot have nuclear weapons?

The world would be a safer place without them. Where can they be used without collateral damage today? Nowhere! Dispose of them, chem weapons also!

The nations without nuclear weapons definitely have a right to tell the nations with them they shouldn't have nuclear weapons either.

Yes some (all) countries should have the right to tell other countries they can't have nuclear weapons. And some (all) countries should have the right not to listen or care what other countries say about them.

It seems that countries which already have nuclear weapons should not have right to say that but no nuclear weapon countries only have right to say that you can't have them.

By preventing the outbreak of WW3, that 'global murder-suicide pact' has saved more lives than any other institution in existence.

Nonsense logic. That's only true until some tin-pot with an A-bomb pops one off. But then there won't be anyone left to brag about how our nuclear weapons saved the world then, will there?

For some countries with less advanced militaries, the nuke is the great equalizer. Those with advanced militaries may not mind if everyone is prohibited to have nukes since they will still come out ahead. But those whose militaries need catching up may want to skip straight to nukes, instead of taking the long road of building up an advanced military and infrastructures.

I think all countries have a moral obligation not only to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but also to disarm their if they've already developed them. Forcing every person born on this planet to be an unwilling participant in a global murder-suicide pact is immoral.

I think the more appropriate question is "Should ANY country be allowed to have nuclear weapons?" Period.

China/SK/USA think they have the right to tell Japan...

They don't think, they know. Same as Japan has the right to ignore them.

In fact, no country should have the right to have a nuclear weapon in the first place.

No country should have nuclear weapons. Especially if they don't look after them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g

Of course yes! All those countries who DO NOT have nuclear weapons clearly have the right to tell those countries WITH nuclear weapons they should disarm.

.... unless this question was proposing that countries with the reckless irresponsibility to have nuclear weapons should have the right to tell responsible non-nuclear countries they can't have nuclear weapons? Naaah, that would just be crazy talk.

Weak or strong doesn't matter to me. If my neighbor were to build a nuclear bomb in his backyard, I would tell him to get rid of it. Of course, the other option would be to build a bigger one, right? (sarcasm)

Odd question. Countries have the right to say whatever they want.

Unless they are rogue nations with a purpose to destroy another country.

Same as Japan has the right to ignore them.

Until the money stops flowing and then they are jolted to attention.

No, I'm very clear on the meaning.

Now that doesn't mean it's something to be proud of, but there are some rogue nations that clearly under no circumstance have a nuclear weapon, especially when they threaten to destroy their neighbors or another country.

Not NK. They'd prob blow the tits off the world-

... have the right to say ... !!!?!

Rights are a kind of condition for quality of life that can only work if there is at least tacit agreement among parties concerned that the 'right' in question is valid may affect all parties albeit in variable ways or to variable extents.

To have or not have nuclear weapons ... Nuclear weapons!!! Rather than North Korea and the traditional big-power non-proliferation issues, India and Pakistan are a better scenario for discussing this issue. I would include Israel, but lecturing Israel about nuclear weapons is to bring automatically a truckload of other 'rights' which might be complimentary, contradictory and distracting all at the same time. Consequently, in some ways Israel is the 'North Korea' of the Middle East.

Nuclear weapons make a country appear selfish and imperious - basically less attractive the more they go on about them. A real bane on the world.

@Commodore

That's only true until some tin-pot with an A-bomb pops one off. But then there won't be anyone left to brag about how our nuclear weapons saved the world then, will there?

Until that happens you can say that MAD had acted as a deterrent. It not the best solution but it 's the only working solution we got at the moment so we should accept it as is.

Odd question. Countries have the right to say whatever they want.

Not that odd. No?? " Should Some Countries . . . " . . . Is meant to imply- the countries already possessing nukes. Right?Read into it. Shouldn't it go without saying? I could be wrong tho-

Yes, only because the fewer countries that have them, the better. Preventing more countries from getting the bomb is step one. Getting all the countries that currently have a nuclear arsenal to dismantle them all, together, is step two.

The premise of the question seems to be based on a misunderstanding. It is a sovereign right for any country to join the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. It is also obviously a sovereign right of any country not to join. Both Iran and North Korea have ratified the treaty, so there are obligations involved here. If a treaty party does not abide by the treaty then other parties can reasonably impose sanctions until they return to fulfill their obligations.

Or how about "Should some countries have the right to tell other countries that they have to teach a different version of their history?

Apparently you're a little unclear on the meaning of 'rights'.

I don't think any one country has the right but I think that NATO or some large group of countries have the right... if agreed upon, to make judgments.

T2:

an ideal, fluffy bunny, tree-hugging world

How many more hospitals, schools and libraries will you have to close to pay for Trident?

It seems the height of hypocrisy and absurdity for one, or a group of countries who have an arsenal of the most destructive weapons known to man to say to another 'We can have nuclear weapons, but you can't because you aren't responsible enough'.

The irony of that is something to marvel over.

So true.

Aggressive paranoid countries that have designs against their neighbors should not have nuclear weapons.

Peaceful countries that want to deter aggression without building a huge military should be allowed to have them.

So NK is a no, modern Japan is a yes.

What's to marvel over?

You think NK & Iran aren't dangerous regimes? Bet they "push" the button first. Talk about hypocrisy, here are two evil regimes who offer nothing to peace & prosperity. Offering nothing to world but threats and slander after slander.

Negotiation of rights is sometimes superceded by 'might makes right'.

If the canny whack jobs overseeing the DPRK ever get knocked off, and Cultural Revolution Mark II flares up there, who can say what might happen with their newly-miniaturized nukes? Maybe some officers will succumb to the hype and launch a few across the DMZ.

Should the DPRK have the right to demand oil and food without giving up their nukes? Or have the right to continue such demands after tricking the supplying nations with undercover nuclear development, earlier?

Note that the DPRK has the 'right' to ignore the 'right' of 'some countries'' '... to tell other countries that they cannot have nuclear weapons', as much as they (the DPRK) can get away with.

In an ideal, fluffy bunny, tree-hugging world we would be free of nuclear weapons, but we all know that will never happen. However, that isn't the topic under discussion - it's about whether some countries have the moral right to tell other countries what they can and can't do. THAT I am opposed to.

At the end the question would boil down to, does any country have the right to say to another nation that military agression is wrong, which is, but saying it will not stop it from actually happening.

Nuclear detterent is as many had posted, is the large barrier from another global war.

no, but there are consequences....

Yes. The strong rule over the weak. As in nature, as in human society. It's not a matter of wrong or right, or a question of morality. It is an issue of order versus chaos. Logically, we all know that if every nation state was granted nuclear weaponry tomorrow, the world would likely be destroyed within a month.

Also if you support gun control but answer 'No' to this question, I really have to question what you're thinking.

@Commodore

By preventing the outbreak of WW3, that 'global murder-suicide pact' has saved more lives than any other institution in existence.

Nuclear weapons are the best thing that could happen to prevent WWIII.

China/SK/USA think they have the right to tell Japan not to visit a shrine in Japan or eat dolphin in Japan, much less nuclear weapon I think.

The non-proliferation treaty is supposed to prevent any new powers from acquiring nuclear weapons. The is because with each new nuclear power the risk of nuclear terrorism grows. For those of you concerned about the existing nuclear powers, Russia can dismantle their missiles first. Yeah, didn't think so.