JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Do you support same-sex marriages?
( 58 )
-
Do you enjoy watching movies in 3D?
( 24 )
-
Do you support torture as an interrogation method if the objective is to prevent a terrorist attack or capture criminals?
( 73 )
-
Would you like to see all U.S. military forces removed from Okinawa?
( 95 )
-
Should Japan be pledging funds to the IMF, Mekong and for other causes overseas?
( 11 )
-
1
Hosono visits Fukushima No. 4 reactor amid concern over fuel pool
-
2
Lady Gaga's Indonesia concert canceled after threats
-
3
Oceanographer says beachcombers on West Coast may find bones in tsunami debris
-
4
New Jersey town's monument to Korean sex slaves upsetting Japanese officials
-
5
241 civil servants file suit over salary cuts
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
26 Comments
Login to comment
0
jinjapan
although i don't feel certain countries should have the "rights" to tell others what they can & can't do, they have to & should "suggest strongly" if they feel that country poses a danger to the rest of the world.
0
nevarezga
Completely agree with jinjapan, a nation is an idependent state, and thus has the right to have nuclear weapons, like the US.
But that is why the UN security Council exists, and is represented by people from diferent countries. Other countries may suggest what is best according to their political and security views.
There are nations with nuclear power that are unlikely to launch even when national security is at stake, however there are the others (Kita Chousen for example) that may attack with no apparent threat.
But who really has the right to allow a country the use of these bombs?
0
LFRAgain
Of course some countries have a right to tell other nations not to produce weapons that could effectively destroy them.
But the hitch is this right belongs to all nations, not just some. And it's a right that is best exercised from a position free of hypocrisy. This "we can have them, but you can't" argument is a pretty hard sell even in the best of circumstances.
0
Chessnutroastin
Maybe it's like not giving a gun or motor vehicle to a child. Similarly, some countries are not advanced, evolved or responsible enough to have one yet, either due to cultural or religious beliefs or political reasons. Which is obviously why it's imperative to have an int'l coalition to prevent certain countries from aquiring them as they could likely fall into wrong hands.
0
zurcronium
The only country to use them so far is the USA. Israel has the bomb but does not admit it, most of the world looks the other way.
Most of the finger pointing and finger wagging being done by the nuclear powers is pure hypocrisy.
0
NeoJamal
What a badly phrased poll question. One that entirely ignores the context of UN nuclear oligopoly and the inherent hypocrisy in the disarmorment initiative. The question ought to be:
Should some countries that maintain nuclear weapons have the right to tell other countries whether they can or cannot have nuclear weapons?
0
TravelingSales
Of course every country has a right to tell any other country which weapons they think that country should or should not possess. In fact, if their leaders feel that the weapons would be a severe threat to national security, they have a duty to do so.
The real questions (and I agree that the original question was bone-headed) are:
1 Does the talling country have the ability to enforce its wishes; and
2 Would such enforcement have consequences which are worse than the danger originally posed by the weapons.
0
Ah_so
I love these loaded questions. How about asking the same question with reverse-loading, such as, "Is it wise for democratic industrialised countries to try to prevent emerging nations with unstable or intolerent governments from acquiring nuclear weapons?"
0
BlackOut
if it is a country with nuke arsenal rang #2 in the world trying to tell everyone not to have it without that one country approval? yeah she should if she want to look like an idiot.
if it is a telling by UN comity, well..why not?
0
grafton
“If the world decides that all weapons are to be abolished down to the last machine gun, we are ready to join at once in such a convention. If the world decides that certain weapons are to be destroyed, we are ready to dispense with them immediately. But if the world grants to each nation certain weapons, we are not prepared to let ourselves be excluded from this concession as a nation with inferior rights.”
I am sure that most people would see the above quote as being both honest and fair in it’s reasoning. Though in fact is turned out to be neither.
Every country in the world has the right to self defence, but that does not mean that they need to wait until they are attacked before they act in their defence. The above quote could with ease be made by Iran today, but it was in fact made in 1934 by Hitler and by showing understanding, by being reasonable, fair and honest the world ended up with millions dead.
0
mareo2
Only people that dont have nuclear weapons, if not it just looks hipocrite.
0
Ah_so
There are no "rights", only realpolitik in the big boys' playground.
Those who have these weapons will do their damnest to keep them out of the hands of those they feel are most likely to use them. When a push comes to a shove, they believe that "rights" are for philosophy students, not for application to the real world of international politics.
0
Hephatsheput
The US has proven that it alone has the right to tell other nations what to do.
0
tokyotom
i think most people want to say "no", meaning that each country has its own right to decide to make nukes or not however, since that answers scares the hell out of us, 52% say yes, they don't have the right
0
888naff
maybe no one has the right to tell others what they can or cannot do ( but depends what you you mean "right").
But that is what diplomats are for building trust and then maybe the others may listen or even agree with your point of view or try to do things in mutual interest.
....Or you could go for bomb the sh*t out them approach that is popular with some regimes. But never get any "real" friends that way.
0
TheQuestion
Interesting question, those in power are always looking for ways to cement their authority. I suppose a fine judge of whether or not a nation has the authority to impose its will on another in terms of nuclear arms is whether or not the nuke craving country has the capacity to engauge in M.A.D (mutually assured destruction) with whatever country(ies) that don't want it to have a nuclear arsenal.
Iran could not go toe-to-toe with the United States, India, or the combined nuclear arms of the EU therefore it's ability to get them and not expect significant backlash is diminished. Nobody initially wanted China to have nuclear weapons but it had the material capacity to make enough nuclear arms to pose a threat to those who opposed them, not to the extent of Russia or the U.S of course, but enough to allow them to produce and keep them.
In addition one has to factor in whether or not they will endorse a 'no-first-use' like China and India, if they will only use them only if attacked with nuclear weapons such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, and Israel, or if they are willing to use them against without precondition such as...well...russia. (These are the official positions, whether or not they would hold them up is a matter of speculation)
So I guess it's a matter of how much you are willing to risk to get your hands a couple of those lovely recepticals of atomic destruction. If you play you're cards right you may get a couple, if not, well...at least you won't be around long enough to regret your decision.
0
tclh
It is not the "right" issue, it is pure political issue related to security/survival of nations.Of course you have the right like I do ,but if you threaten my existence then I will do everything to try to stop you. Sorry to spoil the fun by spelling the obvious.
0
2020hindsight
I think everyone is forgetting something here. And that is the Non Proliferation Treaty. Countries who are vulnerable and do not have nuclear arms agree not to create them. Iran and North Korea are both members. Israel is not. If you are a member you promise not to make nuclear weapons. Iran weren't forced into the treaty, but seem to be breaking their promise.
Now this isn't like America saying that you can't have nukes. Nothing like it. Don't forget that.
0
kumasan1969
some countries think as if they have more rights to say things as if they are more advanced than others. Countries like America telling other countries not to have nukes while they themselves intend to keep them, is no more than a silly comedy.
I think the Obama's approach is respectable in that he intends to ditch the nukes all together, and things starts to make sense.
0
bilbobaggins
Only America should be able to since they are the best country.
Survival of the fittest
0
sabiwabi
They are not breaking the treaty, they are respecting it. They even go beyond the requirements of the treaty.
That's right, they did not join the NPT, so they should not tell other countries what they can and cannot have. The US and Europe should require Israel join and respect NPT rules as a condition to receiving any aid.
0
2020hindsight
sabiwabi
Iran weren't forced into the treaty, but seem to be breaking their promise.
Oh come on. They were caught out with a secret nuclear plant. That's a violation of the treaty.
Israel is not.
So you believe in countries telling other countries what to do (the US telling Israel)? I don't.
0
helloklitty
America is the one that will decide. We have the experience with bombs and we can kill anyone anywhere anytime.
0
kyourin
for the sake of peace keeping .. it is a must that one should act as the regulator of nuclear technology :) since US was the first to develop it in the first place .. then they gain right to dictate others
Back to top