Why Does the UN only punish North Korea for having Nukes?

Everyone in the world has nukes, but the UN only punishes North Korea and Iran and those other nations. USA has nukes too, so why doesnt anyone punish them, the UK , France, and most superpowers have nukes . The UN is supposed to restrict all nukes, not just Korean ones. Why UN? Why ?

Until they teach us the secret to eating with chop sticks it will never end.

North Korea and Iran have are unstable nations with leaders whose motives are not clearly defined. Having these traits raises suspicion among other nations which then leads to sanctions that intentd to pressure the leaders into revealing their intentions.

Anyone besides me really tired of North Korea?

They also like to constantly test missiles, which let's be honest, scares the **** out of people.

Yea but all governments in the world are corrupt, yet no one poses sanctions against them. I just think that no one in the world should have nukes, even the USA.fariso

It could be because Iran has an authoritarian president who denies the holocaust, funds the violent operations of Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and has publicly stated that he wants to "make Israel disappear from the world map."

It could also be because North Korea's Kim Jung Il has stated as one of his goals the annexation of South Korea, a Western ally, and has isolated the country from anything having with to do with such ideas as freedom or liberty. This is a man who kills his own people to try make the U.N. lift its sanctions...you really think he won't drop a bomb on the nation right below him?

Or it could be because Iran and North Korea have both been testing long range missiles with the specified goalsof reaching Israel and Alaska.

Yea but all governments in the world are corrupt, yet no one poses sanctions against them. I just think that no one in the world should have nukes, even the USA.fariso

because North Korea tests missles and send them flying over japan

Because they're the only country considered bat**** insane enough to use them (or at least, the only one that isn't a permanent member of the UN Security Council and/or isn't deterred by mutual assured destruction).

[QUOTE="fariso"]Yea but all governments in the world are corrupt, yet no one poses sanctions against them. I just think that no one in the world should have nukes, even the USA.Ragnarok1051

Because letting North Korea have nukes is like letting a 5 year old have fireworks.

As far as I know, there is no international law that states that these "unstable" nations are any less subject to scrutiny than the rest of us regarding the Worldwide Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Is the international commuinity somehow meant to feel more threatened by two nations that have never invaded another country than the likes of the US and Israel who, at best, could be described as anything but peaceful?

[QUOTE="fariso"]Yea but all governments in the world are corrupt, yet no one poses sanctions against them. I just think that no one in the world should have nukes, even the USA.Ace6301

Civilized nations consider N Korea & Iran to be irresponsible regimes. They fully expect them to do something radical with their nukes once they are in-place and activated.

Anybody willing to believe that Iran, once they have their nukes ready, will sell some to Al Queda?

Oh, I don't know - maybe it's because the country has a 'Dear Leader' with a cult of personality and lets its own people starve to finance its weapons programs. Maybe that?

The nations who already have nuclear weapons once the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed have stable governments and, better yet, safety protocols and safeguards in place which would make launching and using the nuclear assets very difficult to do. North Korea doesn't have either and have been found willing to spread its know-how to rogue states and organization. Even during the height of the Cold War both the Soviet Union and China refused to allow its non-nuclear allies to gain the technology to create and manufacture nuclear weapons.

Probably because the main 7 countries that run the UN are the exact ones you listed. Either that or it could be the fact that if we disarm, our enemies won't follow suit. We need a way to defend ourselves. I hate nuclear weapons, but they're a necessary evil.

The nations who already have nuclear weapons once the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed have stable governments and, better yet, safety protocols and safeguards in place which would make launching and using the nuclear assets very difficult to do. North Korea doesn't have either and have been found willing to spread its know-how to rogue states and organization. Even during the height of the Cold War both the Soviet Union and China refused to allow its non-nuclear allies to gain the technology to create and manufacture nuclear weapons.

Buck_Hotep

Apparently that's more than can be said for the US who has been known to supply Israel with nuclear weapons and the UK who began Trident operation two years ago to expand its nuclear arsenal/

Cause their leader thinks he was born on a glorious mountain when he was born in a dingy hut in SiberiaToriko42

Because they are the only non-NPT country with nuclear arms trying to acquire more. The country has a poor dictator leadership which is technically still at war with its neighbour, and has made multiple threats to other states. Weak states with nuclear weapons is never a good thing.

Yea but all governments in the world are corrupt, yet no one poses sanctions against them. I just think that no one in the world should have nukes, even the USA.fariso

That's great, so do I. But it's not going to happen. What? You think just because someone says "No country shall have nukes" people are going to magically obey? What stopped the Soviet Union from using nukes against the U.S.? Well it's simple. We had nukes too. It's called mutual destruction. The USSR knew that if they fire nukes at us, we will fire nukes back at them and vice versa. But when you get a country like Iran or NK that's extremely unstable or could possibly let terrorists have possession of the nukes, then things get tricky.

[QUOTE="Buck_Hotep"]

The nations who already have nuclear weapons once the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed have stable governments and, better yet, safety protocols and safeguards in place which would make launching and using the nuclear assets very difficult to do. North Korea doesn't have either and have been found willing to spread its know-how to rogue states and organization. Even during the height of the Cold War both the Soviet Union and China refused to allow its non-nuclear allies to gain the technology to create and manufacture nuclear weapons.

Menalque2

Apparently that's more than can be said for the US who has been known to supply Israel with nuclear weapons and the UK who began Trident operation two years ago to expand its nuclear arsenal/

Do you honestly believe that Israel is going to use nukes against Israel unless Israel uses them first? They're for defense purposes only (Mutually Assured Destruction). Doing so would be suicide. Iran however, who supports terrorist organizations, will most likely sell them to terrorist bent on bringing about the destruction of the West.

Come on people. Use logic.

Because their leader is a cockroach in disguise. We all know how much cockroaches want to eradicate humans, Cookie to whoever gets the reference >_>DrSponge

Until they teach us the secret to eating with chop sticks it will never end.

Shi-ro-me

because NK really does not have alot of capable advance nukes yet so we dont want them to have them why let your enemy upgarde to a rifle when they only have a pistol .... HUH HUH

Because the UN is like the kid that gets the newest, coolest super soaker first then the other kids get it and he is like "I'm the only one allowed to play with it" and gets angry because the others have it

Because they are the only non-NPT country with nuclear arms trying to acquire more. The country has a poor dictator leadership which is technically still at war with its neighbour, and has made multiple threats to other states. Weak states with nuclear weapons is never a good thing.

_BlueDuck_

because NK really does not have alot of capable advance nukes yet so we dont want them to have them why let your enemy upgarde to a rifle when they only have a pistol .... HUH HUH

Norg

[QUOTE="Norg"]

because NK really does not have alot of capable advance nukes yet so we dont want them to have them why let your enemy upgarde to a rifle when they only have a pistol .... HUH HUH

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Norg"]

because NK really does not have alot of capable advance nukes yet so we dont want them to have them why let your enemy upgarde to a rifle when they only have a pistol .... HUH HUH

jointed

We care about those areas Because its in the Persian Gulf, OUR life blood for oil.. That is why the United States has infringed so much in the Middle East after 1950s.. Before that it was Great Britain..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Norg"]

because NK really does not have alot of capable advance nukes yet so we dont want them to have them why let your enemy upgarde to a rifle when they only have a pistol .... HUH HUH

jointed

We have never given a damn if they like to follow our routine, just that they are fighting people we don't like. we love to use them, but wonder why they hate us when we **** them over..

[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

Because they are the only non-NPT country with nuclear arms trying to acquire more. The country has a poor dictator leadership which is technically still at war with its neighbour, and has made multiple threats to other states. Weak states with nuclear weapons is never a good thing.

sSubZerOo

But they aren't actively trying to increase their arsenal, is what I was getting at. But then again I haven't really kept up with them so correct me if I'm wrong.

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] To be perfectly honest the only reason they don't want countries like the NK and Iran is because they are not pro American.. We had no problem arming brutal dictators in the past.. We just have a problem when that so called dictator or government will not obey the rulings of countries like the United States.. With out nuclear weapons they are more maleable because we can threaten them with conventional warfare, and they have no answer to it.. On the other hand if they get nuclear weapons countries like the US are forced to actually compromise which based on their foriegn policies for the past 50 years they do not like what so ever.sSubZerOo

We care about those areas Because its in the Persian Gulf, OUR life blood for oil.. That is why the United States has infringed so much in the Middle East after 1950s.. Before that it was Great Britain..

None of those countries' current regimes have ever followed the wants of the west, they're completely insane and don't fear conventional warfare one bit. Imagine what they'll do with nukes, the relationship between North Korea and South Korea would explode for starters.jointed

We care about those areas Because its in the Persian Gulf, OUR life blood for oil.. That is why the United States has infringed so much in the Middle East after 1950s.. Before that it was Great Britain..

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

Because they are the only non-NPT country with nuclear arms trying to acquire more. The country has a poor dictator leadership which is technically still at war with its neighbour, and has made multiple threats to other states. Weak states with nuclear weapons is never a good thing.

But they aren't actively trying to increase their arsenal, is what I was getting at. But then again I haven't really kept up with them so correct me if I'm wrong.