Why is USA the only country allowed to have nuclear weapons?

[Winston]

Why is the USA the only country allowed to have nuclear weapons? Why aren't other countries allowed to have them too?

At what point did America declare itself to be the ruler and authority of the world? Is it because the US is the wisest and most civilized nation on Earth? What's the logic behind this?

Is Britain allowed to have them too?

How can the US prevent all other nations from getting nuclear weapons? Isn't the knowledge of making them already public, or at least in the black market? If so, can't any foreign nation secretly obtain them, and then threaten to use them against any invading military force from the US or UN? In that case, the US could not attack them directly. They'd be impenetrable. Any US fleet that sails to that country could be blown away by nuclear weapons. So why hasn't that been done? Why hasn't Venezuela or North Korea done that? Or even Iraq before it was invaded?

[C.J.]

Mostly, it's Israel that's controlling America and any other western countries.

Also, when it comes to nuclear weapons, Israel will command America to attack if even one nuke is used against its western allies such as Japan, Iraq, Vietnam etc. This gives the jew bastards an easy way to destroy any rogue country. NK/Iran higher-ups know this, which is why they aren't blowing away America. Very tense situation.

This is why Israel and their allies are trying to dismantle rogue countries, all they can do is talk for the moment and Israel will try and use covert agents to neuter them(like they did with Iran). The UN/Nato are Israel's allies too, which is why if the rogue countries wanna go to war they'd have to face half the world in military forces, which is a stupid decision.

Which is why the war has to be fought on other more discreet levels for now. Meanwhile, Israel is basically using their allies to f**k with their enemies and provoke them.

[momopi]

Why is the USA the only country allowed to have nuclear weapons? Why aren't other countries allowed to have them too?

The US is hardly in any position to tell the Russians that they're not "allowed" to maintain a stockpile of ~10,000 nuclear warheads, of which 2,723 are currently deployed on 367 ICBM's, 13 SSBN's, and 76 bombers capable of destroying the United States several times over.








Let's not kid ourselves. Russia does not need long-range ICBM or SSBN's to deter European or Asian nuclear states, considering that Europe and China are basically next door and within MRBM range. You can fire a MRBM or even a Kh-55SM cruise missile from Red Square in Moscow and hit Paris (<3,000 KM). The only reason for Russia and China to have long-range ICBM is to deter the US on the other side of the ocean.


New Chinese SSBN:


Mobile ICBM:



Effective range (and reach) of Chinese nuclear ballistic missiles:

[ladislav]

Who said it's the only one? And yes, Britain is 'allowed' to have them, too.

Here is a list of states with nuclear weapons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... ar_weapons

[momopi]

Who said it's the only one? And yes, Britain is 'allowed' to have them, too.
Here is a list of states with nuclear weapons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... ar_weapons

UK's nuclear arsenal is actually in a shared pool with the US. They paid for part of the Trident SLBM's R&D cost and use the same missiles as USN. Technically speaking UK does not have a "domestic" nuclear weapon that's in active service today.

The French, on the other hand, retained their independent nuclear capability.

[Winston]

So why don't more countries have nuclear weapons? Isn't the info to make them public knowledge or available from the black market?

How come atomic/nuclear weapons haven't been used since they were dropped on Japan in 1945? You'd think that someone would try to use them since then? Why haven't any bad guys used them?

Why haven't any Middle Eastern countries used them to nuke Israel and end all problems in the Middle East? Is Israel at war with all of the Middle East or just with Palestine?

What was the purpose of the Manhattan Project? Was it just to win WWII, or was there another motive at work, such as world domination?

How did Russia and other countries get hold of the secrets to building atomic weapons? Surely the US wouldn't let other countries have it right? Did KGB agents get them or did US agents commit espionage?

[Moretorque]

Just remember the ruler's of governments and the power structures they build around themselves have been proven to be the biggest killers, so if they start going off don't fall for the old Bin Laden cave story.

[Attorney at Large]

So why don't more countries have nuclear weapons? Isn't the info to make them public knowledge or available from the black market?

How come atomic/nuclear weapons haven't been used since they were dropped on Japan in 1945? You'd think that someone would try to use them since then? Why haven't any bad guys used them?

Why haven't any Middle Eastern countries used them to nuke Israel and end all problems in the Middle East? Is Israel at war with all of the Middle East or just with Palestine?

What was the purpose of the Manhattan Project? Was it just to win WWII, or was there another motive at work, such as world domination?

How did Russia and other countries get hold of the secrets to building atomic weapons? Surely the US wouldn't let other countries have it right? Did KGB agents get them or did US agents commit espionage?

The reason no one has used nuclear weaponse since the US bombed Japan is that once there are 2 with nuclear weapons is basically suicide to use them. The USA & Russia counterbalanced themselves for over50 years now. India & Pakistan counterbalanced. The Middle East is interesting as Israel is the only counry currently capble. Iran is close. Once they;re nuclear, many of their neighbors including where I work (Saudi) will likely do the same to counterbalance them. I don't think the muslims would drop the bomb on Israel for fear of what Israel and the US might do. Building a nuclear weapon is not easy and requires a commitment of money and understanding of technology and materials. The more countries that go nuclear just increases the risk. The US and probably every nuclear country don't want new countries added to the list.

[mguy]

Write about this Winston. Write about this instead of paranormal stuff.

[momopi]

So why don't more countries have nuclear weapons? Isn't the info to make them public knowledge or available from the black market?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_and ... estruction

[Yasukuni]

the u.s, europe, australia, canada, and israel should be disarmed and contained indefinitely, simply based on what theyve been doing the past 50yrs.

[Moretorque]

the u.s, europe, australia, canada, and israel should be disarmed and contained indefinitely, simply based on what theyve been doing the past 50yrs.

Who's been controlling these countries the last 50 years? allow me to issue the currency?

[fdiv]

How do we even know there ARE "nuclear weapons"? Why would you simply take the government's word for it? They've proven themselves untrustworthy.

Now, most would say "oh yeah what happened to Nagasaki and Hiroshima". Well, they were likely simply firebombed with conventional incendiary ordnance delivered by the massive fleet of B-29s that had command of the skies over Japan at the time. Did you know an area of Tokyo FOUR TIMES THE SIZE of Nagasaki was destroyed during Operation Meetinghouse on March 9-10, 1945! You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_o ... etinghouse Notice the part where they explain how they dropped the firebombs in an "X" pattern. They did this in an effort to create a "firestorm", where the fire is so big it creates it's own wind from convection and this feeds the fire (like fanning the flames). It is worthy to note that firestorms often create pyrocumulus clouds which are often in the shape of......you guessed it, "mushrooms".


So we have an actual example of an urban area LARGER than the supposed "nuclear bombed" areas, which was done with conventional weapons that were widely used at this time (many other cities were firebombed). So it is at least a feasible proposition that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were simply firebombed. Also, there is no real supporting evidence either way. The only photograph we have of these two events is a "mushroom cloud"

Now let's compare a pyrocumulus cloud to the "mushroom cloud" from the supposed nuclear blast. I'll be fair and post a shot of a pyrocumulus cloud taken from an airplane, because that's how the "nuclear mushroom cloud" was photographed.
Pyrocumulus from a forest fire:


Mushroom cloud from Nagasaki (shot from B-29)


In reality, it's just as reasonable to believe that is a pyrocumulus cloud from a firestorm caused by conventional firebombing raid (which were common at the time). If you go through the US Bombing survey (post war scientific analysis), you'll see the firebombing raids always attempted to cause these firestorms by tweaking their tactics (how fast and in what pattern and on what types of structures they bombed). Most often they just caused fires and destruction but did not initiate a firestorm. Also you'll note that special attention was always payed to the weather as a critical element. Dry wooden and straw Japanese houses made great kindling. Soaking wet ones did not. Given this perspective, it's interesting to read the reports of Nagaski and Hiroshima and see how much emphasis was put on the weather!!! In fact, Nagasaki was the "secondary target", and in the story we're told by notorious liars, Kokura was supposed to be the target but couldn't be bombed because of......bad weather.

What about the so called "nuclear test" films? You can find many youtube videos examining them and finding many, many flaws. Among them:

Sound where there shouldn't be sound. Sounds from the blast are immediate. In reality, sound would take 8-20 seconds to reach the remote cameras/microphones. But it's heard immediately. Defenders of the official narative often say "that's because they dubbed in the sound" without realizing they admit that the "evidence" they are defending has been altered and tampered with. Would obviously altered evidence be allowed in a courtroom trial? No, there are strict rules about handling evidence for obvious reasons!

Rows of trees breaking in an absolute uniform fashion. Plausible explanation is the objects being destroyed are miniature models. Landscape
stuff is hard to model and make it look natural and non-uniform.

Nuclear blast not affecting some things that it should, such as sweeping away clouds and light objects, while ships are tossed like toys. This is simply bad rotoscoping special effect.

Scenes switching from day to night right before the blast, and you can freeze frame it and see the splice. Again, intolerable alteration of "evidence".
Gravity not affecting


Now when I bring these points up, the "skeptics" always say that if the government went to all the trouble to make propaganda films, they wouldn't have these mistakes. They claim it's simply "editing", and don't respond to my very specific criticisms and simply ignore it and default to their smear tactics. But I think what they are missing here is, at the time this stuff was made, it could be sloppy. People saw these "test films" in a news reel before the main presentation in a movie theater. They only saw them at full speed, only that once, and details would be forgotten because after all, they came to see a movie. Even if a lone person happened to catch something, he'd be likely to dismiss it rather than point it out and be labeled a weirdo. People didn't have the technological advantages the average man has these days in the form of personal computers with sophisticated multimedia capabilities that can play, rewind, edit, pause and zoom to fine detail, etc. What's most significant about that is the people producing this military propaganda could not predict that would be commonplace 50 years in the future. That's the reason these "test films" were shoddily made.

[fdiv]

I forgot the best "nuclear test film" propaganda! Remember the "trinity test"? Yes, the very first "nuclear weapon" exploding! Well look at this:
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/vide ... r_00092377
They show the film of workers stacking 100 tons of TNT onto a wooden platform at the "test site".
Here's some clearer pictures of the platform used to create the special effects:
https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/100-ton-tnt-shot

Pretty obvious to draw your own conclusions from that. I believe someone back then smuggled the footage out (possibly a spy for a foreign government). Given the threat of having their expensive psyop being blown, the US Government went with the "limited hangout" option and claimed that footage was just a "calibration shot" whenever it became public. See how easily people can be fooled? There's evidence there the films were FAKED, the government acknowledges the footage, but everyone's put back to sleeeeep when the hypno-master chants the magick words "calibration shot". INSANE.

[gsjackson]

I've run across this theory a couple of places. I guess the thinking is that nukes are a Jewish psy-op, to scare off any would-be attackers of Israel. They float out the "Samson option" of taking the rest of the world with them if they go down. All bullshit.