Loading...

Should All Countries Have Nuclear Weapons?

56,769 views

Loading...

Loading...

Transcript

The interactive transcript could not be loaded.

Loading...

Loading...

Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Jun 23, 2012

Should all countries have nuclear weapons? Is Iran a serious threat or is Pakistan more dangerous? Will a war erupt with Israel? Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian discuss on The Young Turks.

Read more from Kenneth Waltz in USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/...

Which countries have nukes? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzaxRm...

Support The Young Turks by Subscribing http://bit.ly/TYTonYouTube

Like Us on Facebook:
Follow Us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/theyoungturks

Comments • 1,462

hulksmash05
I believe that ALL countries should have these weapons or NO countries should have these weapons.
SmolKing
the nuclear race is like two people standing knee high in a pool of gasoline, one of them has 3 matches, the other 5. it makes no sense to have more than 1 or at all 1
Thinh Le
The problem is that some of these countries may supply nuclear bombs to irrational people a.k.a terrorists, who do not give a shit cuz they're irrational
View reply
Hide replies
alacson100
One should also note the disastrous consequences of removing the nukes from the game. In a nuclear-free world, states will have to spend more for troops and conventional weapons for their defense. This would also imply more conscriptions—something that is almost unacceptable for most of the Western world. Furthermore, the security dilemma necessarily returns because there is no longer any effective deterrent that threatens M.A.D. And when there is a security dilemma between great powers, world wars are more likely to take place. Moreover, there is no longer any nuclear umbrella, so countries like Japan and South Korea—countries that are dependent on the US nuclear umbrella—will have to fend-off for themselves by creating more conventional weapons and troops. The removal of nuclear weapons makes the rest of the world feel less safe. And even if one does not care about other countries, imagine your own country being harassed by another because your own country removed its nuclear arsenal, making it more tempting to be attacked and exploited. Ukraine once had the Bomb, yet it removed them after the Cold War. It must have regretted doing so two decades later! So be careful on what you wish for. Nuclear weapons are here to stay. They are status-quo weapons. Worrying must not be exaggerated. Sleep tight, my friends! :)
chateucaddy
   Saudi Arabia Is The Main Sponsor Madrassa Which Are Afghan Pakistan Schools Base ON Islam. But When It Comes To Iran Getting  Nuclear Weapon The Fear Is The Rest Of The Middle East Will Go On A Nuclear Weapon Buildup/Arms Race Like What Happened In The Cold WAR Between The US & The USSR & China Then When India & Pakistan Got Them Another Nuclear Arms Race.    Now This Guys Study They Were Talking About Wont Hold True In Places Like (IRAN PAKISTAN & SAUDI ARABIA) Do To Religion Islam & The Great Numbers Of PPL Willing To Die Including Those In Power & Those Who Might Get Into Power &/Or Control Of The Nuclear Weapons. But Unlike The M.A.D. That Kept the US & USSR From Attacking One Another & Still Came Close A Handful Of Times.
GameNatic
Brazil is one of the countries capable of making nuclear bombs, but they never did, because they are already the strongest military in South America, they fear Brazil even without nuclear bombs.
Benjamin Ostergaard
So basically his argument is fine as long as we don't elect a complete idiot for... oh no, we're all doomed.
Lazare Landais
Short answer : obviously not
alacson100
I respectfully disagree with Uygur's take on nukes for a number of reasons. First, the international stage is different from domestic politics in a way that the former is in a state of anarchy, meaning the absence of a night watchman or a sovereign world government looking over to protect its constituents. As such, states have to look out for themselves by trying to become more powerful. It pays to be strong in international politics. Having weapons in the domestic arena is pretty different (and I must admit that owning a crazy assortment of weapons in the US is insane). Second, conventional weapons do not equal nuclear weapons, given that two nuclear states cannot even launch their nukes, thereby giving nukes very little offensive capability. Third, while India and Pakistan (both nuclear states) have gone to war for a brief moment, neither had a secure second strike capability, thus making the idea of a nuclear deterrent ineffective. Fourth, Waltz does not include rationality in his theory of international politics. In the case of nukes, we have had cases wherein actors who were thought to be unpredictable and "irrational" have not launched the nuke yet, for instance: (1) while the Kim dynasty in North Korea has long been derided for unpredictability and irrationality, they have always stopped short of attacks that would risk the regime’s survival; and (2) Waltz even addresses the issue of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons, terrorists have always had greater opportunities to inflict damage then they have displayed, and they have avoided such attacks. Nuclear attacks would not help a terrorist group’s image.
33maraba
It would be india that would go crazy, dont blame pakistan for this
Advertisement
When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next.

Up next


to add this to Watch Later

Add to

Loading playlists...