Does the US have the right to demand that other nations not have nuclear weapons?

Right? No. Might? In some instances.

It comes from old white men.

great question btw. love it

No.
If you can have it, it’s only fair if I can have it too. No offense, but I don’t trust you enough to let you have a lethal weapon you can use on me, and not have a way to defend myself.

Of course not…

No, but the US believes that it is their right (as a gift from Allah, Buddah and Jebus) to protect every other country from themselves. Like when you are in school and there is always somebody’s mom who thinks she knows what’s best for every other parent, kid, teacher and admin staff in every school of the planet…

This is directly related to the idea of American exceptionalism.

If unprovoked, we don’t have the ”right” to ”demand” anything.

Of course we have the right. But of course those hearing such demands have every right to ignore them.

But in return every other country has the right to turn washington into a radioactive cinder.

No, but since when did you lot let a little thing like “right” get in the way.

No, since we were the first nation to use the bomb on another country. Nonetheless (yes, I realize it’s a BIG nonetheless), isn’t it RIGHT, morally, that we and every peace-loving nation demand other nations not to have nuclear weapons to mutual global benefit?

Not while you still have them.
“No, since we were the first only nation to use the bomb on another country, and on civilian targets no less.”

What is a right, when it comes to nation states? There is only power. You only get to be a state if you have the power to make other people agree that you are one.

Anyone can demand, anyone can say “get stuffed.” What happens next depends on who has the power to achieve their goals. Power sometimes comes from moral justifiability, however. Other nations are less likely to oppose you if your certain actions are seen as moral by their population.

On the topic of nukes: Nuclear weapons are insanely powerful, much more so than the ones dropped in WW2. Their unrivaled potential to destroy and contaminate represent the most salient existential threat humanity and life in general has ever known. And sadly, their existence was essentially inevitable. But now that Pandora’s box has blown open, non-proliferation is a morally justifiable strategy. Think of how close we’ve come to nuclear war with only two rational actors involved. The more nuclear states there are, the more potential for their use, either on purpose, by accident, or by a third party who acquires them. Look at Venezuela. If they were nuclear, wouldn’t the impending state failure scare the shit out of you?

Non-proliferation is a UN treaty, not a US policy, but yes, as the most powerful economically and militarily, and therefore the state with arguably the most leverage internationally, not only is the US morally justified in leading an agenda of non-proliferation, it is morally obliged to do so for the sake of humanity. Sure it’s paternalistic, but Russia sure isn’t going to do it.

Of course, the “fair” thing to do is simultaneously push for mutual disarmament, which has been happening for many years. Every country that has the bomb, however, would find it very difficult to give up nuclear weapons altogether. This emphasizes the importance of non-proliferation.

I have to agree with @Smashley this. Non-proliferation is not merely a US policy but rather a UN policy. We just received a unanimous vote on sanctions to prevent N.Korea from further development of nuclear weapons. The truth is the more countries that have them, the more likely they are to be used. Sticking our head in the sand won’t make this go away and mutually assured destruction won’t last forever. There are too many bad actors, such as ISIS, that don’t give a shit about mass destruction. You can’t put the Genie back in the bottle so the only chance we have is to limit the the numbers until somebody finds a way to solve the problem. Everyone sees the problem but if everyone has a right to have nukes, we’ve assured our own destruction.

I don’t believe that nuclear weapons can be “demanded” out of existence.

North Korea is a perfect example. The country’s leadership will not let sanctions, or threats stop their program. In fact, all attempts to curve the development have seemingly sped up the program.

The world will have to collectively lay down their arms. That is the only way. As long as there is belief that conflicts can be resolved by violence, there will be weapons. The best weapons will determine the outcomes. So. As long as wars are seen as an option, there will be weapons of mass destruction. As @Jaxk says, “you can’t put the genie back in the bottle.”

War is hell. It is not a realistic option with the advancements in warfare technologies. Think about it. An exchange of nukes between the US, and Russia would essentially destroy the world( At least as we know it. ) The only strategy there, is “if we can’t win, at least nobody can.” Our leaders would rather snuff out all of humanity than make concessions, or broker peace through compromise. Otherwise, there wouldn’t even be nuclear weapons.

A change of thinking is required to de-nuke the world. Not more violence….

Only in the sense that “might makes right”. If you are strong enough to enforce your will, then it is right. I’m sure we’ve all hear of MAD by now and unfortunately two men who are actually capable of attaining it are insane.

Sure we do. Just like everybody else.

The US has no moral right to demand other nations do not go nuclear but as @Smashley says the UN does. The UN however does not have the power to enforce non-proliferation whereas the US does.