Are we at fault for forcing other nations to develop nuclear weapons to defend themselves?

Korea specialists generally accept Pyongyang's stated rationale that it sought its own bomb for defensive reasons — "as a response to the U.S. deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea," says author Selig Harrison.

Yoshiki Mine of Japan's Canon Institute for Global Studies, who as a diplomat dealt with both disarmament and North Korea, said the northern regime feels its existence as a nation is threatened.

The U.S. nuclear option "does give the North Koreans an excuse to develop, acquire and own nuclear weapons," Mine told the AP. "They have indicated many times that as long as this basic security is not secured, they would not abandon nuclear weapons."

5 Answers

  • 9 years ago
    Best Answer

    Well, the only reason to develop a nuclear weapons capability is for defensive purposes. In North Korea's case it is clearly meant as a deterrent against an American attack that they at least are absolutely convinced will come at any moment. They are taught this from birth.

  • 9 years ago

    If the US hadn't come up with the bomb first, another country would have. The Soviets and Germans were developing nuclear weapons at the same time as the US. After the war it was necessary to keep them due to the Soviets having their own weapons. Now other countries have them to defend themselves from other nuclear states and no one will give them up, because to do so would leave them vulnerable now that the information to build them is out there. It was only a matter of time before nukes would be invented, let's just be glad the Nazis didn't build them first.

  • 9 years ago

    Draw an analogy to handguns. Person A has a handgun to protect themselves from Person B, because they heard that he might already have a gun. Person C hears about this and rushes the store to buy a gun to protect himself from Person A and B, and it snowballs. Is it really Person A's fault that Person C has a gun? Can we blame him?

    Person A locks the gun away and gives the key to a committee, and only they (by unanimous decision) will relinquish the key to Person A (democracy). Person B, on the other hand, has his gun locked and loaded in his waistband, ready to fire at will (dictatorship; i.e. N. Korea). Person B also really dislikes Person A, and has told him so on many occasions.

    The problem with a peace-seeking liberal mindset is this: They seem to think it's a reality that if Person A destroys his handgun then Person B will do the same, and they'll be friends and live in peace. Do we really want to risk it and see how it goes?

  • China is more likely to nuke N. Korea than any western nation...including Japan. Since Kim Jong Very F ing Ill has gone forth with his adventure the Japanese have been debating changing their Constitution and military Defense Force policy to go ahead and build a nuke themselves. Should take them about 2 weeks as they do not suffer that vast illiteracy present in N. Korea.

    Will guess you know zero folks that have escaped a communist regime, been jailed in one, been subject to the whims of the local party or been turned into a sex slave for their use...I know all of the above. Have also watched armed guards surrounding a elementary school in the DDR, tower guards targeting an old man hoeing weeds in a field, land mined area's behind a fence designed to shred flesh with staggered anti personnel mines every 5 meters. Saving them from us or penning in their own??????

    The hunger for continued power fuels the great Ill one, just as it does for those in Iran. Their people suffer while they prosper. They starve them into submission in N. Korea and claim to need the bomb in Iran so they can destroy Israel.....what wonderful F ING people they are!

    20 Jan 1961 Washington DC

    Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens:

    We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom -- symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning -- signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago.

    The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

    We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans -- born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

    Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

    This much we pledge -- and more.

    To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided there is little we can do -- for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

    To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom -- and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

    To those people in the huts and villages of half the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required -- not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

    We merely carry on the thoughts of the last truly great Democrat!

    Survived 27 months living 1000 meters from 100 tacticle nukes in NATO site 5.

    1991 was when those and the ones in S. Korea were removed.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    Forcing? I don't think we're pointing a gun to any ones head.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.