Any answer to this question would be pure opinion, but I sincerely believe that nations should not have the freedom to develop nuclear weapons. The more nations that have them, the more likely it becomes that they will be used.
the dodgy ones
No, but it would be nice to see them have nuclear weapons, considering that Pakistan and India are nuclear nations.
Japan has the technological capability to develop nuclear weapons quickly, but it has chosen not to do so due to its commitment to a non-nuclear policy.
There were tests of nuclear weapons but no other nuclear weapons were dropped on other nations as an act of war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the only uses of atomic weapons on other nations.
Nations may want to retain or develop an arsenal of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons for deterrent purposes to dissuade potential adversaries from attacking. Additionally, they may see these weapons as a means to protect their national interests and security in a world where other countries possess such weapons. Lastly, some countries may view these weapons as a way to maintain a position of strength and influence in global politics.
no
because their time had come.
Yes hence the word NUCLEAR WEAPONS
jewish fish
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.
To prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to other nations.
The UN tried to limit nuclear weapons in many ways. For example, the UN simply wanted all nations to disarm itself with all WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction), this includes Nuclear Weapons. Also when certain countries like Iran and Korea starts a nuclear program, the UN tries to make sure that none of it is used to make Nuclear Weapons.