Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
No. Only the leading powers of the world should have nuclear weapons.
In order to answer this I'd need to understand what is meant by second world countries. If you mean it in the old Cold War sense as being the communist nations, well then they already do.
Okay, now we need someone like SunTzu to come out and enlighten us all about just what makes up a "first world country', and a "second world country", and so on because I have never heard of that term before . . . And I have traveled to a heckuva lot of countries during my Military career!
I guess DebateItOut got one over on me there . . .
1) Who are the leading powers? I would argue the UK or certainly Pakistan, India, and Israel don't fit this category (at least India doesn't yet). All of them have nuclear weapons. To say nothing of North Korea.
2) Why? What difference does it make? It would seem like not having a nuclear weapon as a second-rate power would induce leading powers to play the game of nations on your country whenever they damn well please more than it would incite chaos and destruction from such a country.
On this one I'm afraid my usual trope of questioning the question and demanding it should be rephrased into something that actually means something is in order.
Kind of a meaningless question to ask if a people that don't seem to want something should have that something. Other than Russia, none of the old Soviet bloc countries that fit into the nebulous "second world" theory care about having nukes.
You still haven't answered just what IS a "second World" country!?!
And does it have anything to do with all the rumors of a "One World Governance"?
I am really curious about this one.
To my understanding:
First World Nations are those that ideologically follow many American policies. Or hold at least some of our governing ideals.
Second World Nations are those that followed the over-all ideals of Cold-War era Soviet Union.
Third World Nations, contrary to most popular belief are nations who followed the ideals of neither.
Though most people only know the "Third World Nation" phrase thinking it applies to poor, starving, "law-less" countries….. The poor and starving are usually just side-effects.
"Second world country" had to do with the Eastern/Soviet bloc countries. It's basically a meaningless term now.
UK is definitely a leading power.
They are less stable and threaten the security of the larger states.
Thank you, LT.
LT beat you to it, and with more complete and detailed information.
According to what? That they kowtow to US hegemony?
How? DPRK has had nukes for a couple years now. I don't see them doing anything different than they have over the last 5 decades. Pakistan, again, has had nukes for a decade. India for several decades. Same with Israel.
When are they threatening the security of larger states? I don't see China or the US being all that concerned about India for example. In fact, we sent India a bunch of money and nuclear reactor technology not that long ago. Far from being threatening, we made a new and stronger alliance.
Even if they are threatening, why is that by itself a bad thing? I'm sure it might well be where the threat might be plausibly carried out (which is extremely unlikely, even the North Koreans haven't nuked anybody because they know what happens next…), but I'm curious to see how this argument is fleshed out other than to simply state it that it must be bad. Why is the existing power structure so desirable that it cannot tolerate new independent actors in the form of nation-states with different goals from that of American supremacy?