The US and allies of the US can have nuclear weapons while other countries do not because of one golden rule:
-The best predictor of future behavior is by studying past behavior
While all countries have played their part in destruction and war over the centuries,
Countries such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia have been aggressors, broken treaties with other nations, and ignored basic international laws within the last 30 years.
If you are unable to trust a country, there is no way any nation in their right mind would approve and support the creation of something so powerful and potentially harmful.
BUT: If you look at the past behavior of United States, it is well known that US is the ONLY country to have used nuclear weapons during war, killing millions of civillians.
For that, US is the only county that SHOULD NOT have nuclear weapons since everybody is "unable to trust" that country (with good reason).
Countries having nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons but without important reserves of uranium.
Without nuclear weapons, another nation with nuclear weapons could launch an attack without worry of a retaliation. There are not that many ways of diverting a long-range ballistic missile.
Nuclear weapons are a good thing for the United States because they prevent others from using nuclear weapons on the US. In general, the world would probably be a better place without nuclear weapons if it weren't for the fact that they lead to research in all fields of Nuclear Engineering, like Nuclear Power plants and Nuclear Physics. Since nuclear weapons already exist in the world, for the US to get rid of their nuclear weapons would be unwise. Countries that dislike nuclear weapons or even radical terrorist cells and organizations would now have no reason not to launch a nuclear warhead at the US since no retaliation would occur. The strategy of nuclear weapons preventing others from using them against the US is called the Deterrent Strategy.
It is the way nations say to the world "mine is the biggest penis".No, the world does not need nuclear weapons. They don't deter enemies, specially if they want to become martyrs, or rush them to acquire nukes on their own; they are costly and are indiscriminate on who they harm - that is why they are called Weapons of MASS Destruction.I don't know who said it, but a good quote on the topic is: "The best way to kill an enemy is with a knife, not with a bomb". (The bomb kills those around the main target, thus creating more enemies ad infinitum).
They share a border. Being such a big country a nuclear bomb can be used against them without bothering their neighbor countries. This puts them in a critical position.
The country that uses the least amount of uranium is likely one with very limited or no nuclear power infrastructure. Some possibilities include small island nations or countries heavily reliant on other energy sources.
No, the first Nuclear Weapons were created near the end of WWII as a way to defeat Japan without to great a loss to the USA's Armed Forces.
Because ww3 is around the corner and they dont want to be without any weapons. Nuclear weapons are a weapon but also a very good deterant
Every war that the US has fought except WW2 were fought entirely without using any nuclear weapons.
In countries with nuclear fuel plants but without uranium mines.
Nuclear weapons fundamentally altered the geopolitical landscape by creating a new paradigm of mutually assured destruction (MAD). The threat of massive, indiscriminate destruction led to a heightened focus on diplomacy and disarmament, as the Cold War standoff between the United States and Soviet Union demonstrated. Additionally, the existence of nuclear weapons increased the urgency of non-proliferation efforts, with countries striving to prevent the spread of these weapons to ensure global security.
One reason was nuclear weapons, the other was a war without qaurtier