Either everyone has it or no one does

It's a very simple logic question. If only certain countries have it, it is an obviously hypocritical thing for those countries to stop other countries from having it. If you detest possession of nuclear weapon, you shouldn't possess it in the first place, and possessing them automaically and atomically strips you from any right to lecture any country. There's really, really nothing much to debate about. Yes Anonymous

Countries have all the right and freedom to ensure their security and survival
Well, if US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel can have it, then the rest of the world can also!!! Equality prevails over all and that should happen here as well. Its a guarantee of safety and security for a country and monopolized hold of Nuclear weapons is a threat to global peace! Yes Anonymous

Countries are sovereign entities, and should be able to decide for themselves if they wish to possess nuclear weapons.
Any country should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, if that is their wish. It could be dangerous for the world, but it is unfair to say that some countries can have them, while some can't. Any country should be wary of the world superpowers having control of so many nuclear weapons, and it is reasonable for them to wish to have some of their own to defend themselves. Yes M0r3Fire

I oppose companies having nuclear weapons, nuclear is to dangerous and deadly for people to have it.
I feel that nuclear weapons are to powerful for any country to have. Nuclear weapons can wipe out nations. I don't see why anyone would wipe out an entire nation. If a world war would ever happen again those with nuclear weapons would be the only ones standing. Nuclear weapons don't bring about nothing but fear into people of a nation. Yes C0ImEIite

Every country should be allowed to do whatever they want with responsible decision making.
Every country has the right to process their own nuclear energy, but they shouldn't do that anyway because it could kill thousands of innocent people. I believe that if you have nuclear weaponry it could be hard in some cases to protect those weapons and weapons like that could be disastrous. Yes waffletime

Mutually assured destruction works as well for Iran as it does for Russia, and rogue states will get nukes eventually.
One of the key tenets of the nuclear arms race during the Cold War was something called "mutually assured destruction"--the idea that if one country launches a nuke, the other will use its second-strike capability to retaliate, devastating both countries. This is a lose-lose situation and thus the nuclear powers were kept at bay. Some say that rogue states will use nuclear weapons like suicide bombs, but the comparison is misguided. Suicide bombers have no power base to lose. Iran, for instance, would lose its power base if it was destroyed by a nuke, which goes against their longterm agenda. The thing we really need to fear is if non-state actors get their hands on nukes. Then the suicide bomber comparison really is valid. Yes 54uIIan

Every country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons.

I do believe that every country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons. If some countries have the right and some don't how is that determined? It is not fair for only some countries to be allowed to have them and some are not. Unless there is a great threat if they have one then they should be allowed. Yes barbiegirll

As sovereign nations, countries with the industrial and scientific potential to build nuclear weapons have a right to make that choice for themselves.

I believe nuclear weapons are a technological option that is either available to all countries or available to none. I find no basis upon which to ban certain countries from possessing nuclear weapons. Just because a country has ideological or foreign policy positions that are different from those of the US is not a sufficient reason to ban them from having such weapons. Finally, it is all but impossible to keep a country that actually wants and is able to develop nuclear weapons from developing them, so a ban is unenforceable in any case. Yes SweetieSkipp Voice Your Opinion No 69% of users

No country should possess nuclear weapons because it is unsafe to the entire world.
Nuclear weapons are far too dangerous for any country to have them. A nuclear weapon used as a threat means an increase in world tension, and many countries will simply respond by creating their own nuclear weapons. When everyone has these weapons pointed at one another, diplomacy breaks down into fear of mutually assured destruction. No babyuniqh

I think no country should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, because of their destructive nature.
Their is no need for nuclear weapons. The people that die are just ordinary people, who have nothing to do with the reason to use them. What good does it do, anyway, if you use them to take over a nation, when it will be completely destroyed? Many years will have to pass before you can even send people into the country to assess damages. No one will ever be able to live there or farm there, or anything, for that matter. No EndurableWinford28

I do not feel that every country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons because, if they fall into the wrong hands, it could be dangerous for the world.
Every country should not have the right to possess nuclear weapons. There are some countries that would use these weapons to cause harm to everyone on the

planet. They would act irrationally and irresponsible, with the given opportunity. Only countries that have proved themselves worthy should have the right to possess these kinds of weapons. No TabooReyes

Nuclear proliferation should be a right withheld from many countries, especially dictatorships, and those in practice of human rights violations and genocide, to name a few.
The right of nuclear proliferation is not one that should be extended to a great number of the world's nations, particularly those run by psychotic dictators, and those in practice of human rights violations and genocide. Nuclear power is the most powerful technology known to man, as well as that with the greatest capability for destruction, and certainly only those nations that support and defend freedom, liberty, and peace should be in control of it. No LudicrousJosh83

NOOOOOOOOOO
well the porblem is that countries cannot control themselves No Anonymous

I dont believe anyone should have them.

Nuclear bombs give politicians the ability to kill millions in seconds. Not only the destructive potential of the explosion but the effects of radioactive fallout on the planet. Nuclear weaopons are for cowards who are afraid to fight for their own but ironically the fools who conceived this failed to think of the possibility that someone else could invent them, when they did and theses arrogant fools realized they could be killed allong with much of the world population now all of a sudden they want fake world peace. No true warrior likes nuclear weapons only idiots who like the idea of winning a war without sacrifice do. Nuclear weaopons are for cowards. No Anonymous

Definitely not. We all know deep down that they are an abomination to civilization.

I agree with previous posts. As a leader in the world, we should be the first to get rid of our nukes, however, if we do that before all other countries, we will be putting ourselves into a position of vulnerability. I doubt it will ever happen...the threat of nukes from the countries that have them is enough to keep people from using them at the present time. That is not to say that the probability of these bombs flying in the near future is low. No Anonymous

Absolutely not. Some countries have leaders who are too unstable for that.
Nuclear weapons really shouldn't exist at all, but the fact is that they do. However, some countries have leaders whose behavior is far too erratic and unpredictable to have possession of such weapons of mass destruction. These leaders have to be watched constantly; the whole world has to be on guard for any sign of them attempting to gain possessions of, or construct nuclear weapons. There is no room for error when it comes to handling these situations. No PinkMych

I oppose to the fact that countries should have possession of nuclear weapons.
Owing to the current global conditions, whereby any time a third world war could spark, keeping nuclear weapons could be the cause of wide-scale devastation. And love is what you need not weapons. So it is mandatory that such weapons-of-massdestruction should be kept away from most countries. No R0d30Stam

I am against all mass destructive weapons.

Nuclear weapons has greater impact on the life universally. They affect all kinds of life forms and have long-term consequences. Hence, I oppose any country possessing nuclear weapons. No SaroM0vi3

Nuclear weapons should never exist.

I believe that nuclear weapons should never be made, and whoever tries to make them should be punished. Nuclear weapons have too much destruction power, they

could wipe out an entire country of innocent civilians, women and children, possibly an entire race depending on where it was set off. Not to mention wildlife, animals and trees. No Starbust

Every country should not have the right to possess nuclear weapons because it just leads to war or tensions amongst countries
Every country should not have the right to possess nuclear weapons because it just leads to increased tensions amongst countries and possibly war. There are countries, such as North Korea, that could be viewed as ticking time bombs that have been outspoken on its need to prove themselves to the global community with weapons. That is just one example of why it doesn't make sense to have nuclear weapons. The problem is, who is to say who should possess them and who shouldn't? That is a whole other issue. The other issue is who would enforce such rules. No SandDari

No country should have weapons of mass destruction-not even the United States.
Nuclear weapons are a death sentence for the entire world in that, if one is deployed it will ruin the earth and every living thing on it. There is no way to prevent strong winds from blowing fall out to the far corners of the earth. Although the same reasoning could be used in favor of these weapons (based on the argument that nobody would actually deploy one for that very reason)the fact remains that there is no way to protect the human race from an act of insanity. Therefore, no nuclear weapons should be made or distributed to any country. No N3vinFace

Every country should not have the right to possess nuclear weapons because no country should have that right.
There are some cultural habits that have passed away. No one has the right to duel in the street, kings no longer have the power of life and death over peasants, and slavery is supposed to be illegal. As we grow as a society we can give up unneeded acts of violence and if nukes don't count, what would count?

No groovybox

Every country should not have the right to possess nuclear weapons.
I do not think that every country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons. I think that nuclear weapons should not be allowed for any nation unless authorized by the UN to have them and that we should stop the development of new weapons. Reaching a "stalemate" because nuclear weapons are owned my many countries does nothing to help drive peace globally. No SilverMathi

Every country should not have the right to possess nuclear weapons because some nations are too unstable.
Every country should not have the right to possess nuclear weapons because some nations are too unstable. Since the collapse of the USSR, lots of their old weaponry and military equipment have gone missing and/or ended up on the black market. Some countries would use weapons in small, petty disputes to settle centuries' old grudges against neighbors. No H0bi3Invader

We barely survived the Cold War - don't start an Ice Age war!
The Cuban Missile Crisis nearly caused a nuclear weapon exchange and possibly the death of millions. There are now more nations with nuclear weapons, including Pakistan, India, France and possibly Israel. There are also more rogue states that may use such weapons, including Iran to eliminate "the Zionist threat" they see in Israel for merely existing and Al Qaeda against the infidels. If every nation had a right to nuclear weapons, all the minor conflicts in the world could erupt into nuclear war. We should seek to disarm all nuclear weapons, not give a universal right to possess them. No Pir4And

With Nuclear Weapons comes moral and practical responsibility.

In an idealistic utopia, no need would exist for the possession or use of nuclear arms. Unfortunately, that utopia does not exist on this planet. With respect to the greatest firepower mankind has ever known, only those nations of the world who act in a responsible manner should have the privilege of possessing these weapons. Nations who seek these weapons for status, to threaten neighbors, or who desire the unfettered use of this destructive power must always be deterred from possessing these weapons, by force if necessary under extreme circumstances. In general, all nations should be discouraged from nuclear proliferation through treaties, incentives, and assurances of support should unthinkable circumstances arise. Those nations who do possess this weapon should only retain weapons sufficient for defense and deterrence purposes while continuing to find ways to promote nonproliferation. No snuggle muffin Voice Your Opinion