I've been wondering a thing for a while now. It's not the exact topic of this thread but it's close enough I hope. As far as I know USA is the only country who have dropped the bombs on somebody else during wartimes. They bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima during WWII which I'm certain you all know. And this is where my question comes. In modern times USA is accusing others for having weapons of mass destruction and they search through their countries to find and "destroy" these weapons. How come the only ones who've used the weapon is given the right to keep theirs? I don't see the logic... they've proved that they use them if they want to and still they can keep them.
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is just as bad as the bombing of bombing of Tokyo or the bombing of Dresden... in my point of view an act of terrorism and not war. Is the terrorist really such a great threat when a president behaves as one?

Oh yes. I am trying my best to remember how the game theory applied in this situation... *searches reading history without success* . Essentially the reasoning was, if the US acted rationally, there was a possibility the USSR would launch a preemptive strike, so the US had to be seen as acting irrationally, in fact, had to convince everyone that it could and would act irrationally. I think this is also the solution to the Unexpected Hanging Paradox.

Russia keeps hers. As do several other countries. Most of these however, are either too powerful or too arrogant to submit to U.S orders.

We disprove of countries like North Korea or Iran developing or owning nuclear weapons due to their instability or irrationality. Superpowers (Such as Russia, US, Europe) tend to be more level headed.

I think it basically was what you said, the idea that if one country gained an advantage, i.e. by building a missile silo or something, would the other country respond by starting nuclear war? There would be ways in which this could be prevented, so each country hid missile silos, kept their eye on the other country, etc... But then there's the danger of miscommunication: what if I'm the US and I decide I want to build more fallout shelters as a safety precaution. To the USSR, this looks like I'm about to strike - why would I prevent against trouble unless I plan on starting some, right? These standoffs caused the great tension between the countries, but we can thank game theorists for not having our planet blown out of existence, because both countries consulted them on strategies.

Britain? France? Russia? Israel? China? Several NATO countries have access to US weapons. South Africa technically have the right to although they've decommissioned all theirs. Several former USSR countries inherited weapons from the USSR which have now been decommissioned. All of these countries are not violating the NNPT.

Exactly. The difference is that North Korea, Iran, or Pakistan are unstable enough to attempt to use them. Every other nation simply maintains them as a deterrent while such nations also have or are attempting to develop them.

Yep, that's the concept of mutually assured destruction. Even with missile defences, both sides would take hits and be essentially eliminated, and on each side, any surviving allies would then become drawn into the war, using their own weapons if available, plus the existence of some policies which are known to be in use which state that in the event of an impending attack, they will launch all available weapons in return.
Not even the USSR was irrational enough to destroy themselves in return for destroying the US, UK and Europe.

And of course this is why the Ballistic Missile Defense System ("Star Wars") was seen as so destabilizing; it might reduce the casualties to a point where a preemptive strike would be an option.

Most people didn't understand the logic in BMD; they (correctly) reasoned that it could not intercept 100% of incoming missiles and that whatever made it through would cause catastrophic damage (also correct); so what was the point? In fact it was more game theory; the US didn't need to build a perfect BMD; all it needed to do was build a system that would cost less to knock a Soviet warhead down than it cost the USSR to make it, and they would win the arms race; the Soviets would go broke trying to keep up. This is more or less what happened anyway, only they didn't need to build the BMD to get there.

Precisely, much more of a tactical project than a project with legitimate intent of use.

If the talks between the U.S. and Russia dont produce results, Russia plans on creating more nukes. Im anxious for the next Tsar bomb.
Isnt she a beauty?

psssshhhhhttttt, that's nothin'...I don't get outta bed for anything less than a 60 bagillion gigaton bomb.

Russia can't even afford to train its military with live ammunition or keep its navy from rusting, producing more nukes would literally bankrupt them.

Not necessarily. Russia happens to have a powerfull economy and is a leader in military spending. BTW most militaries train with blanks or airsoft. Its cheaper=smarter. I would agree their navy hasnt exactly been up to par but they are going to build 6 aircraft carriers

in soviet russia, bullets train themselves with you!!!!

We're not gonna have a nuclear war with Russia anytime soon. It would only lead to self-annihilation. The nukes are gonna sit there in their silos collecting dust. As for a nuclear war with North Korea, I'm wouldn't doubt that Kim Jong Il will be stupid enough to push the button(well not HIM, b/c he's so short, he'll never be able to reach the button. He'll have to get one of his men to do it. :D). But, than again, if he fulfills his promise and launches a nuclear "sacred war" with the U.S. and S. Korea, we've got enough nukes to send his ENTIRE country, literally, straight to H#$L. In actuality, the Weapon of Mass Destruction that is used everyday is the Russian AK-47. Those guns have killed more people in their history than the nukes have. And with its durability, simplicity, cheapness, and availability, it's the main weapon for many armies, especially in the Middle East and in Africa. The death toll of the AK-47 rises exponentially everyday.

I'm afraid I have to disagree on you on the topic of Iran, North Korea and Pakistan. I feel that they have nuclear weapons mainly used as a deterrent.

Pakistan developed their weapons in response to India nuclear weapons after the 1971 war in an attempt to counter Indian miltary superiority, an attempt to prevent a further indian invasion by use of the MAD doctrine.

North Korea developed nuclear weapons to provide a further deterrent against invasion either by the south or the US. Again its the MAD doctrine, if you attack us we can hit you hard (assuming they can get their rockets to work)

Iran is an semi-isolated state who is in a stand off with two nuclear powers (Israel and the USA) the later having a massive miltary superiority. Acquiring nuclear weapons would protect them from attack via the MAD doctrine.

Of course these states have their problems. Pakistan is suffering internal ethnic conflicts and its intelligence services are supporting terrorist groups but as far as I see the army itself (though weak) is stable. North Korea may be a brutal dictatorship but its leadership is more concerned with thier lifestyles and therefore have no reason to risk being deposed through a war. Iran is a bit of a wildcard due to the power of radical clerics but from what I see the government knows the risks and so steer close to the edge but doesn't try to fully cross it, after the invasion of iraq and the fear of US invasion they slowed down their missile side of their weapon programme.