North Korea has successfully tested a number of nuclear explosives. It is still unclear though if they have weaponized them. It is probable that they have succeeded in weaponization.
North Korea has already built nuclear weapons. So it doesn't really matter whether anyone believes that they should or shouldn't be allowed to do so. The next question would be, should North Korea be allowed to keep its nuclear weapons? It would be better to overthrow the Kim dynasty and take away the nuclear weapons and introduce democracy and reunification with South Korea, but those things would be very difficult to do. The existing dictatorship is heavily armed and will fight to the death to prevent its own replacement by better government. So, we play a waiting game. If North Korea becomes sufficiently dangerous, the world will react. For now, it is mostly bluster. North Korea has promised to launch missiles against the US, but so far it has not done so.
North Korea is a country that cannot function purely on its own, in the sense that it cannot feed its population. However, its rulers wish to maintain the status quo in order to continue to be able to maintain their lifestyle. In order to do this (and feed their massive army) North Korea requires foreign aid, especially from countries like the USA and South Korea, which are both loathe to give it. As a result, using the threat of nuclear weaponry is a negotiating tactic that North Korea uses to get the aid it needs from its sworn enemies.
then America's screwed. =D It is unlikely, and if it happens there are many different scenarios, including the one written above, but it is not the only one. War with North Korea might also mean war with China, as it was in the early 1950's. North Korea and China have their own nuclear weapons now, with no need for support from Russia. It could be bad.
india and north korea doesnt share any similarity in terms of governmental strutchur. while india is worlds largest democracy there n. korea is a failed nation with a communist rule.
The US tested nuclear weapons on its own territory including the deserts of the continental southwest US.
No, it is not legal for individuals to own nuclear weapons. Ownership and possession of nuclear weapons are strictly regulated by international treaties and laws.
The new country that want to make nuclear weapons. And how to consult with they own weapons
India is already a nuclear power, and they have nuclear weapons on hand. They have already made the decision to "encourage" nuclear weapons, and presumably for increasing their own security.
Originally the USSR was assisting them with reactors and was promising to supply nuclear weapons if needed, so China would not have to develop their own. However the USSR withdrew from this agreement in 1959. This caused China to begin their own nuclear weapons project, culminating in their first test in 1964. So nobody assisted China to develop nuclear weapons. They did it on their own.
Russia, USA, France, UK, China, Pakistan, India and North Korea all accept they own them. Israel are widely believe to possess them by other countries but have never admitted. Governments believe that Iran may do and that Syria were once very close but arent believed to have them
Possible, but we maybe past that. One interesting factor we don't hear is how can North Korea afford the items they are making and testing. They can't even keep all the lights on in the country on at night. There is a simple answer and that is China is their banker. So, what needs to be done is to cut off the funds to the North Korea regime by getting China to stop paying for the research. A deal has to be done so China doesn't bankroll the further research of nuclear weapons. A little diplomatic contact can go along ways in this matter. If you don't believe my answer do some research on this on your own.
Yes, it is illegal for individuals to own a nuclear bomb. Ownership and possession of nuclear weapons are strictly regulated by international treaties and laws.