# WHY IRAN SHOULD (OR SHOULD NOT?) have nuclear bombs?



## psicutrinius

There is a  thread about whether Bush and Ahmadinejad should debate live on TV. There are many deleted posts there because they do not address THAT issue.

I suspect that they used to address the one in the heading instead, and that's why I open the thread.

Any takers?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Now I'd love it if those "rogue" posts could be moved here.


----------



## Outsider

My posts that were deleted were not about this question, actually. Nor about the debate, I hasten to add.


----------



## ireney

The answer is simple: Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons. No one should have nuclear weapons. Do I need to explain why I am against nuclar weapons?


----------



## Alxmrphi

It's not about the "nuclear" weapons for me, it's about that America is allowed to have them, but says other people aren't, and by that stance only I think Iran SHOULD have them, if America got rid of theirs, and then had a go at Iran, then I'd suggest they don't.

Double Standards.


----------



## mansio

The problem is not that this country has nuclear weapons and that one has none.

The problem is the following: if we consider that too many countries already have nuclear weapons, should we allow still more countries to have them?

Now about Iran: it is a strong possibility that Iran will have nuclear weapons in the near future (if it is not stopped by a preemptive strike).

Are the Iranians going to have nuclear weapons with us or against us? The choice is ours.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

I'm completely against nuclear weapons, but is really sad to think that in the real world (where nobody rejects to control weapons) such concentration of destructive power could be the only way to have an equilibrium. I mean, could Cold War between NATO and Warsaw Pact had been "so cold" without the mutual assured destruction (nice acronym: MAD) menace?


----------



## .   1

ireney said:


> The answer is simple: Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons. No one should have nuclear weapons. Do I need to explain why I am against nuclar weapons?


As per usual you have saved my fingers the trouble of typing.
I agree with Ireney.

.,,


----------



## mansio

Ireney

What is the use of saying that no one should have nuclear weapons when too many already have them?

You should better say that those who have them should get rid of them.


----------



## psicutrinius

Now that I have "tested the waters", here I plunge into them:

1 ) I agree with Dr. Quizá in full

2 ) This is an imperfect world. Of course, it would be better without ANY nuclear weapons, BUT as it is, t he fact is that when the US had the monopoly, they did not blackmail the (then) URSS enough to deter them to become (even) a Great power (or the Chinese later on, and so on), and I am not so sure (in fact, I am sure of the contrary), that if instead of the US it had been the ayatollah's Iran, they WOULD.

3) The tragedy is, in my view, that the Iranians (the overwhelming majority), at worst don't care a damn about that and at best they are positively AGAINST. The problem is that it is the ayatollah's clique that want to set themselves firmly and for ever in power the ones who want that.

4) A clique that wants purely to keep themselves in power, and who are bent in exporting the Islamic "faith", who have also a surrogate state in Lebanon (Hezbollah attacks Israel, but Israel must counter against Lebanon, not Hezbollah, who use the Lebanese as Human shields besides), with all the advantages of being a State and none of its inconvenients, and who will be backed by a State with atomic weapons, bent in exporting their regime and with the ability (and the will) to carry out whatever terrorist outrages they may deem convenient and deterring anybody at the receiving end from any EFFECTIVE retaliation, is NOT anything I would be prepared to live with.

5) In one thing the ayatollahs seem to agree with... LENIN: "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will strangle them". Yes. We should once and for all get away from oil and let them DRINK it instead of paying whatever the price and actually funding their nuclear programs and their export of their "revolution"


----------



## venenum

I can't resist but to ask you: what proof do you have that Iran is actually making a nuclear bomb? Wate! Just a minute! I know! The fact has been proven - by the same folkes that swore the God Iraq had chemical weapons (of which they found few bottles of Raid). 
I'm not saying they are making the bomb. I'm not saying they aren't. I'm just really skeptical towards any info that we get from such a reliable source.


----------



## MarcB

venenum said:


> I can't resist but to ask you: what proof do you have that Iran is actually making a nuclear bomb? Wate! Just a minute! I know! The fact has been proven - by the same folkes that swore the God Iraq had chemical weapons (of which they found few bottles of Raid).
> I'm not saying they are making the bomb. I'm not saying they aren't. I'm just really skeptical towards any info that we get from such a reliable source.


What we do know is that Iran by its own admission is enriching uranium. They say for peaceful purposes. The next step to a weapon is not far off.
At this point no one is saying they have a bomb, they may have. The fear is they will probably develop one and they sponsor terrorism that is the world’s fear including some in the region. That does not mean the ones who we know already have them are more responsible, but we know for sure Iran is a potential threat.


----------



## 3.1416

*...with us or against us? The choice is ours.*

I liked that phrase.

Now...
    ...*WHY IRAN SHOULD SHOULD NOT have nuclear bombs?* 
*Because that way, it'll be easier to be invaded!* 
or, ... how do they call invasions lately?
I think that TV calls them... occupation?
My point is that they have lots of oil and i know about some family that owes some oil company and the biggest arsenary on earth.


----------



## psicutrinius

Have I a proof?. No I haven't Why? because they do not let experts find out whether they are after it or not.

If they aren't after that, why should they go the covert way?.

And, of course, the point is that there will be a "smoking-gun proof" that they do. They will themselves make it clear once they get them, but of course, then it will be too late.

By the way, 3,1416: You are off the mark. The point here is whether IRAN has them, not the US. I am afraid that the family you are talking about do NOT own the nukes, but also that if instead of them it was another one (where the incumbent was fond of letting young (female) aides playing the flute privately for him) you would say that he also owned (wrong again) the nukes besides that.


----------



## ireney

mansio said:


> Ireney
> 
> What is the use of saying that no one should have nuclear weapons when too many already have them?
> 
> You should better say that those who have them should get rid of them.




The question is "Why Iran should (or should not) have nuclear weapons".

My answer to that question is it shouldn't.

If the question was "Is it hypocritical from nations with nuclear weapons to say that Iran shouldn't have some",

My answer would be Yes.


----------



## maxiogee

ireney said:


> The answer is simple: Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons. No one should have nuclear weapons. Do I need to explain why I am against nuclar weapons?


I don't think there can be many truly sane pople who are in favour of nuclear weapons.



mansio said:


> Ireney
> What is the use of saying that no one should have nuclear weapons when too many already have them?


What a silly question! The "use" if saying it is that, if enough people in enough countries say it often enough, then those who have them might eventually get rid of them. The end of the Soviet Union seems to have brought about an unwanted end to the move towards nuclear disarmament.



> You should better say that those who have them should get rid of them.


Not "should better say" - "also say" which is precisely what ireney is saying.





Alex_Murphy said:


> It's not about the "nuclear" weapons for me, it's about that America is allowed to have them, but says other people aren't, and by that stance only I think Iran SHOULD have them, if America got rid of theirs, and then had a go at Iran, then I'd suggest they don't.


I have never understood why the guy/gang with a big stick is allowed to say that no-one else is allowed to own a big stick.
My stance is de-stick everybody as soon as possible. 

I know that people will say that one cannot unlearn the knowledge of how to make a nuclear weapon, but I'd rather there be a chance that an idiot might make one than that there be a chance that an idiot might add to the thousands there already are.


----------



## zooz

If they're not with us, they're against us. You don't let your enemy possess what might threaten you.


----------



## TonioMiguel

I am also not a big fan of nuclear weapons but telling countries they can't have them but we can is very arrogant.  I also understand that we as a nation are trying to push our power on others which many see as a silent attack on their nation.  The more we make our voice heard the more Iran will continue.  I do not feel if we tell them to get rid of the bombs that it will do any good.  

2nd as much as the US has said that nuclear technologies lead to the bombs how much proof do we have that they are indeed making bombs.  I know their history would confirm our suspicions but not truthfully if they have them.  

To me, this issue is of far greater importance than we give it credit.  Yet, it would be arrogant to assume that Bush is 100% correct after the truth came out about Iraq's so called weapons of mass destruction.


----------



## fenixpollo

maxiogee said:


> I have never understood why the guy/gang with a big stick is allowed to say that no-one else is allowed to own a big stick.
> My stance is de-stick everybody as soon as possible.


 A sound policy. 


psicutrinius said:


> By the way, 3,1416: You are off the mark. The point here is whether IRAN has them, not the US.


 That is the WHOLE point, psicutrinius.  The US has them, and feels itself justified in denying what it has to other countries. 





psicutrinius said:


> 2 ) This is an imperfect world. Of course, it would be better without ANY nuclear weapons, BUT as it is, t he fact is that when the US had the monopoly, they did not blackmail the (then) URSS enough to deter them to become (even) a Great power (or the Chinese later on, and so on), and I am not so sure (in fact, I am sure of the contrary), that if instead of the US it had been the ayatollah's Iran, they WOULD.


 From the start, the policy of the US has been to prevent other countries from getting the bomb. If the US could have prevented the USSR and China from developing it, they would have -- through blackmail or otherwise. (It sounds like you're saying that the US did not try to prevent the USSR and China from developing the bomb.)





			
				psicutrinius said:
			
		

> 4) A clique that wants purely to keep themselves in power, and who are bent in exporting the Islamic "faith", who have also a surrogate state in Lebanon (Hezbollah attacks Israel, but Israel must counter against Lebanon, not Hezbollah, who use the Lebanese as Human shields besides), with all the advantages of being a State and none of its inconvenients, and who will be backed by a State with atomic weapons, bent in exporting their regime and with the ability (and the will) to carry out whatever terrorist outrages they may deem convenient and deterring anybody at the receiving end from any EFFECTIVE retaliation, is NOT anything I would be prepared to live with.
> 
> 5) In one thing the ayatollahs seem to agree with... LENIN: "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will strangle them". Yes. We should once and for all get away from oil and let them DRINK it instead of paying whatever the price and actually funding their nuclear programs and their export of their "revolution"


  You're bringing in Hezbollah and Islamic "revolution", but that's not the point of this debate.  It's about the rights any country has to develop nuclear weapons.  The outcome of the nuclear issue will impact all of those things you mentioned, but that's just the result, not the cause.

In addition, you mention "revolution" and religious agendas. What Bush is doing with his "freedom agenda" isn't any different (religious fanaticism included). Every country that thinks its system is the best one, wants other countries to adopt that system.

What's at issue here is, how much control do and should powers like the US have in the internal affairs of another country. And is developing the bomb a strictly internal affair?


----------



## cuchuflete

A possibly pertinent or impertinent question:  What, if anything, did the existing "club" of nations with nuclear powers do to prevent India and Pakistan from developing their own?

Why were those two nations perceived differently from Iran?


----------



## ireney

psicutrinius said:


> 5) In one thing the ayatollahs seem to agree with... LENIN: "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will strangle them". Yes. We should once and for all get away from oil and let them DRINK it instead of paying whatever the price and actually funding their nuclear programs and their export of their "revolution"




Funny, I never realised we buy oil out of charity!

That gave me an idea! Let's stop buying weapong from countries that make them and let them PUT THEM WHERE THE SUN DOESN'T SHINE!!


----------



## claudine2006

I'd like to have a peaceful world, so I think none should have nuclear bomb.
But Iran should have nuclear bomb just because USA has.
I'm extremely worried thinking about Bush's finger on the bomb button that can destroy the world. If also Iran has got nuclear bomb, this doesn't change my feeling of concern.


----------



## Bienvenidos

This is definately a trust issue. We, as Americans, trust our country's use of any nuclear weapons to protect us. But we don't trust other countries having them. I'm sure the Iranians feel the same way. Should there be talks? Possibly. I don't think avoiding your "antagonist" is the best way to run the free world. Didn't all of our first grade teachers tell us that the best way to get over a problem is by talking about it? Are we hypocritical: yes, extremely. We're hypocritical about a lot of things. In order for us to feel safe, we need to feel as if we have a median of protection (nuclear weapons). In order for us to feel safe, we need Iranian to stop their nuclear program. In order for us to feel safe while being fair, we need to be able to trust Iran. And maybe that's not a bad idea: the world is splitting apart because of misconceptions. Maybe it's time to build a bridge: we can get over our differences. All hatred in the world is based on stereotypes. We need to break those stereotypes. Of course, this is all very "optimistic" and is, of course, easier said than done. But we can accomplish this. How hard can it be? My only fear is that we'll be stuck like this, and we'll lose our ability to negotiate. What does history tell us: we still haven't come up with a plausible solution to conflicts. Maybe we should start thinking now. We can be on good terms with Iran: it's not a sin. As long as we have trust in each other, it will work. They won't hate us if we express our feelings to them (I'm not saying that Iranians hate America, that would be a stereotype, and I don't play into stereotypes). The major problem in this is safety. We want our cake, we want it to have strawberry frosting, and we want to eat it too. We can't do all that. 

There's so much "backwards and forwards" with this issue. It's extremely overwhelming. What more can we do, as independent citizens? I'm not sure. It's in the hands of our elected leaders. Let's hope it all turns out well.

Saludos


----------



## modus.irrealis

I don't really see the West's (France's, England's, the US's, Germany's, etc.) position on this is all that unfair. They're basically saying if Iran continues to pursue nuclear capabilities, then there will be negative consequences for them. I can understand why those countries see Iran's getting nuclear weapons as a bad thing, much of it being in their own self-interest of course but that's how countries act.

On the other hand, I can think of why Iran should have a nuclear bomb. Well, should's not the right word, but there's a possible positive aspect to them getting it, since it seems that historically when nuclear weapons are involved, the stakes become so high, that the chance of war is decreased. Unless someone who is genuinely insane becomes leader of Iran, I can't see them ever using a nuclear weapon because they would simply be obliterated. Nor do I think they would be attacked if they had nuclear weapons (look at North Korea vs. Iraq).


----------



## psicutrinius

Let's see:

I am quite sure (for starters, and I said so at my very first post, but -surprise, surprise- NOBODY seems yet to have noticed it), that I am quite sure that *IRANIANS (the overwhelming majority), at worst don't care a damn about that and at best they are positively AGAINST*. I said also that *the problem is that it is the ayatollahs' clique that want to set themselves firmly and for ever in power the ones who want that.*

Therefore, the problem is not whether IRANIANS (or martians, for that matter) should or should not have nuclear weapons. Unless somebody can positively provide evidence against that, the point is that most Iranians would rather see the sums spent in this matter spent in improving their lot, and that WHO WANTS NUCLEAR WEAPONS THERE IS THE AYATOLLAHS' CLIQUE to eternize themselves in power and export their ideas, or their whims, while comfortably sitting on the driving seat forever.

Since, besides that, they will have at their disposal a sovereign state (and one that is no match for all those south of the Persian Gulf: They alone have more territory - population - resources than all the neighbors put together), they can effectively BLACKMAIL the complete area. And, while at that, they own Hizbollah, and can run an "Al-Qaeda bis" by proxy, while holding the vast majority of IRANIANS as hostages in case anybody had any evil thoughts about settling scores with them after "Al-Qaeda bis" gets its show on.

I agree that nuclear weapons should not exist, but given the FACT that they do, I am more comfortable at they being in the hands of the US than THIS CLIQUE. I have never heard before that any country should be obliterated, by the US, or any other country in possession of such weapons -not even the "evil countries" as "Jorge Arbusto" says.


----------



## fenixpollo

Psicutrinius, you seem irritated (I can tell, because you *shout* in capital letters) that nobody has been addressing the issue of the Iranian people -- which you did not include in your original question.





psicutrinius said:


> I am quite sure (for starters, and I said so at my very first post, but -surprise, surprise- NOBODY seems yet to have noticed it), that I am quite sure that IRANIANS (the overwhelming majority), at worst don't care a damn about that and at best they are positively AGAINST. I said also that the problem is that it is the ayatollahs' clique that want to set themselves firmly and for ever in power the ones who want that.


 What is your evidence for this?  I have no direct evidence to the contrary, but I have heard radio reports from the BBC and other western networks, in which freelance reporters who are based in Iran have said that the general public in Iran supports its government in general, and that popular sentiment is in favor of acquiring nuclear weapons.


----------



## DavyBCN

fenixpollo said:


> Psicutrinius, you seem irritated (I can tell, because you *shout* in capital letters) that nobody has been addressing the issue of the Iranian people -- which you did not include in your original question. What is your evidence for this? I have no direct evidence to the contrary, but I have heard radio reports from the BBC and other western networks, in which freelance reporters who are based in Iran have said that the general public in Iran supports its government in general, and that popular sentiment is in favor of acquiring nuclear weapons.


 
From my reading of the limited free expressions of ideas in Iran there is certainly a view that, being virtually surounded as they are by three countries (Russia, Israel and Pakistan) which have dubious credentials as neighbours and all possess nuclear weapons, that Iran has a case for its own.

Not an argument I would subscribe to, but it does have some validity, especially given that both the USA and the UK arm the world - or those parts of the world which follow their wishes.


----------



## danielfranco

You know? There's something I've never troubled myself to find out: Are there any peaceful applications for enriched uranium? Or is it all directed towards weaponry?
I don't know... But I thought Iran has not gone as far as to say "lemme have my very own nukes, dude, you've got your own!"
I thought they were just saying that they were enriching uranium come tide or high-water...
I don't know...
I guess I should watch the news more often...


----------



## .   1

danielfranco said:


> You know? There's something I've never troubled myself to find out: Are there any peaceful applications for enriched uranium? Or is it all directed towards weaponry?
> I don't know... But I thought Iran has not gone as far as to say "lemme have my very own nukes, dude, you've got your own!"
> I thought they were just saying that they were enriching uranium come tide or high-water...
> I don't know...
> I guess I should watch the news more often...


I think that enriched uranium need not necessarily be enriched to weapons grade that requires an extraordinarily high level of purity.
Australia is about to go down the uranium power road and I can't see this doing any more damage than we have done with the Coal and Oil Age.

.,,


----------



## Alxmrphi

maxiogee said:


> I have never understood why the guy/gang with a big stick is allowed to say that no-one else is allowed to own a big stick.
> My stance is de-stick everybody as soon as possible.
> 
> I know that people will say that one cannot unlearn the knowledge of how to make a nuclear weapon, but_* I'd rather there be a chance that an idiot might make one than that there be a chance that an idiot might add to the thousands there already are*_.



As many people have said, it's a good idea, I'd kinda prefer all the weapons to be on one side, where they will never needed to be used, rather than a tempation of warring with nuclear bombs..

Second of all, the whole title of this thread I have a problem with, it's not about Iran making nuclear bombs, it is about Uranium enrichment, their "nuclear program".. nobody has said they are making / plan to make / have made 'bombs'.


----------



## djchak

Should Iran have Nuclear power? As a peaceful way to generate energy? 

YES.

Should Iran have Nuclear bombs?

NO.


----------



## maxiogee

Alex_Murphy said:


> As many people have said, it's a good idea, I'd kinda prefer all the weapons to be on one side, where they will never needed to be used, rather than a tempation of warring with nuclear bombs..



I take it we can assume that you mean the US when you say that?

How can we residents of this pale blue speck be sure that they will never be used, no matter who is the "one side" to whom you would consign them? 

We have no guarantee whatsoever about who might or might not have the authority to use them, nor have we any guarantee regarding the circumstances under which they could legally use them, let alone illegally.


----------



## ireney

maxiogee said:


> I take it we can assume that you mean the US when you say that?
> 
> How can we residents of this pale blue speck be sure that they will never be used, no matter who is the "one side" to whom you would consign them?
> 
> We have no guarantee whatsoever about who might or might not have the authority to use them, nor have we any guarantee regarding the circumstances under which they could legally use them, let alone illegally.



Plus, call me crazy, but I've seen in history what happens when there's only one with the power to annihilate the others. Since with nuclear weapons we are talking about _the_ annihilation, I somehow fail to see what would be so assuring with having only one power that can turn us to radio-active waste without fear of retribution. The "bullying" power alone that this will give to that country is scary.


----------



## Alxmrphi

maxiogee said:


> *I take it we can assume that you mean the US when you say that?*
> 
> How can we residents of this pale blue speck be sure that they will never be used, no matter who is the "one side" to whom you would consign them?
> 
> We have no guarantee whatsoever about who might or might not have the authority to use them, nor have we any guarantee regarding the circumstances under which they could legally use them, let alone illegally.



Well, I just didn't actually want to "say" the name, lol.
I just meant instead of two countries against one another, nuclear bombs, scary world, if "one" country has them, then they are not likely to be used, or as likely as if another opposing country had some as well.


----------



## Tsoman

When you think about it, perhaps nuclear weapons have saved lives, maybe millions of them.


----------



## .   1

Tsoman said:


> When you think about it, perhaps nuclear weapons have saved lives, maybe millions of them.


When I think about it I know that nuclear weapons have killed and maimed millions.
The very concept of going back to the scary idea of Mutually Assured Destruction makes me believe that we are most certainly not getting any smarter as a species.

.,,


----------



## Alxmrphi

Tsoman said:


> When you think about it, perhaps nuclear weapons have saved lives, maybe millions of them.



Care to enlighten me?


----------



## fenixpollo

Alex_Murphy said:


> I just meant instead of two countries against one another, nuclear bombs, scary world, if "one" country has them, then they are not likely to be used, or as likely as if another opposing country had some as well.


 The likelihood that nuclear weapons would be used depends on the agenda and the temperament of the people with their fingers on the triggers.  It doesn't matter whether one country or ten countries have them -- or how "benevolent" or "democratic" their governments are -- they can still be used.





Tsoman said:


> When you think about it, perhaps nuclear weapons have saved lives, maybe millions of them.


 That's not a rationale for nuclear weapons: that's a pathetic, after-the-fact justification for "mutually assured destruction" as a policy.


----------



## .   1

fenixpollo said:


> That's not a rationale for nuclear weapons: that's a pathetic, after-the-fact justification for mutually "assured destruction" as a policy.


My understanding of the term is that it is Mutually Assured Destruction or abbreviated to to the presciently descriptive M.A.D.

.,,


----------



## Victoria32

Alex_Murphy said:


> It's not about the "nuclear" weapons for me, it's about that America is allowed to have them, but says other people aren't, and by that stance only I think Iran SHOULD have them, if America got rid of theirs, and then had a go at Iran, then I'd suggest they don't.
> 
> Double Standards.


Double standards exactly!


mansio said:


> Ireney
> 
> What is the use of saying that no one should have nuclear weapons when too many already have them?
> 
> You should better say that those who have them should get rid of them.


Yes. But that's a counsel of perfection, it is never going to happen, though I for one, wish it would.


venenum said:


> I can't resist but to ask you: what proof do you have that Iran is actually making a nuclear bomb? Wate! Just a minute! I know! The fact has been proven - by the same folkes that swore the God Iraq had chemical weapons (of which they found few bottles of Raid).
> I'm not saying they are making the bomb. I'm not saying they aren't. I'm just really skeptical towards any info that we get from such a reliable source.


Me also


cuchuflete said:


> A possibly pertinent or impertinent question: What, if anything, did the existing "club" of nations with nuclear powers do to prevent India and Pakistan from developing their own?
> 
> Why were those two nations perceived differently from Iran?


Good question


danielfranco said:


> You know? There's something I've never troubled myself to find out: Are there any peaceful applications for enriched uranium? Or is it all directed towards weaponry?
> I don't know... But I thought Iran has not gone as far as to say "lemme have my very own nukes, dude, you've got your own!"
> I thought they were just saying that they were enriching uranium come tide or high-water...
> I don't know...
> I guess I should watch the news more often...


Iran says they are enriching uranium for power generation purposes. The UN estimates *they are 10 years away from a bomb*, so it's all a beat-up, and an excuse to invade.


----------



## 3.1416

_*


psicutrinius said:



			I have never heard before that any country should be obliterated, by the US, or any other country in possession of such weapons -not even the "evil countries" as "Jorge Arbusto" says.
		
Click to expand...

*_ 
Long ago there was this li'l island near gulf of México that received a gift from Russia with love, i think it was the 70's.
You may want to read about it and the way the US reacted back then.

They menaced them to bomb the island.
Also, you may want to check on what they're doing at the Amazonas.


----------



## psicutrinius

Are they nuking the Amazonas?

That was the sixties -and why? which gift did the Russians give them? (and not actually GIVE. No Cuban was allowed to more than SEE (and guard) the things. Ah, and you are off the mark. They menaced to INVADE them, and blocked the island by sea.

I regard this -the project for invading- as exclusive of bombing (with nukes).


----------



## maxiogee

psicutrinius said:


> Are they nuking the Amazonas?
> 
> That was the sixties -and why? which gift did the Russians give them? (and not actually GIVE. No Cuban was allowed to more than SEE (and guard) the things. Ah, and you are off the mark. They menaced to INVADE them, and blocked the island by sea.
> 
> I regard this -the project for invading- as exclusive of bombing (with nukes).



Wrong! President Kennedy threatened Nikita Krushchev bomb Russia, and, had he done so, would certainly have had to bomb Cuba to prevent the use of the missiles there.

This is from a site annotating tapes from the Oval Office during the crisis:
> JFK states that an air strike would neutralize the missiles
> but would likely force the USSR to take Berlin "which leaves
> me only one afternative which is to fire nuclear weapons - 
> which is a hell of an afternative - to begin a nuclear exchange."


----------



## psicutrinius

Surely Khrushchev did not bring the missiles to Cuba just for fun?

Surely JFK did *not* order an air strike in the first place? That is, surely the -then- incumbent kept his head cool enough?.

Surely had Khrushchev left the missiles home no "Cuba crisis" would have taken place?.

That last is the recurrent problem with us at the west. Somebody decides to "test the waters", gets it done and tries again -a harder bargain and so on until it gets well-nigh impossible to put up with him, and very drastic measures are required. Hitler began with getting into the Rhineland in 1936, then into Czechoslovakia ("appeasement" was the motto), then the Anschluss and by then he was pretty sure that he could go anywhere, so he tried Poland but that was the red line.

Had he got a drastic response in 1936, the problem would have been traumatically solved then. It was not, so it meant WW II, which solved the problem, but at an infinitely higher trauma level...


----------



## Fernando

The problem is that 

1) TOO MANY nations have nuclear weapons. 
2) Many of the others have decided not to have it (Spain, as an example), signing the NPT.
3) The world (not only US) does not trust Iran.
4) If Iran has nuclear weapons, I think my country should have nuclear weapons. I am anti gun, but if my stupid neighbour has a gun I will buy one, for sure.


----------



## Alxmrphi

So then by your logic, everyone should have every weapon possible, and we will all be armed to our teeth and constantly a threat to one another, is that really how you see we should better ourselves as the human race?


----------



## psicutrinius

Well, the problem here is (in my view), that when these are in the hands of a CLIQUE, the problem is that they want them to cow everybody into any blackmail they may dream of. Their idea is to deter you lest you are at the receiving end *now*, no matter what you do *later*. And they do not give a damn whether you may or may not respond in kind, because the only thing that matters to them is their *own* status.

Their "rationale" is something like "You won't stand to the effective risk of being nuked. So you will cave in, because in any case you would be nuked *first*. And even if you retaliate, we don't care a damn, because that would mean we go all into oblivion, but we (again, the *clique*) would anyway if we step down (or are thrown away from governing), because in such case, our life expectancy would be seconds". That the life expectancy of the remainder of the population in the country be seconds, too, doesn't matter a bit to them.

Which -going back to square one- means that the point is *not* to let any clique get away with it. That you too have nukes won't solve this problem.

And a serious additional consideration here is that you might awake one day to a threat such as "you let us do such and such (or let our proxies), or else a nuke will go off at (for instance) your capital city in so many hours / days from now". You threaten to make a parking lot of the place, well. Your capital city will go before...


----------



## maxiogee

psicutrinius said:


> Surely Khrushchev did not bring the missiles to Cuba just for fun?


No, he brought them to Cuba whilst manoeuvring over Berlin. Check out the details of US-Soviet relations at the time. 

Khrushchev was a "showman" politician, renowned for staging events to make him look good.

My point was not about who had what weapons, what we know is that Kennedy actively considered using them, and certainly threatened to use them when he was dealing with the Cuban crisis. 
As far as I know, no other head of state is known to have threatened to use nuclear weapons, ever.


----------



## psicutrinius

I do not see the evidence you brought (and I do not recall from memory -I was young, but around, at the time, and I had a very knowledgeable father as well, though that was ages ago, of course- proving that JFK threatened the Armageddon.

Rather, his rationale was exactly as you say:

"I order a strike -I get rid of the missiles but they are fiddling with Berlin and will not let it go, so they will mess up there and, since precisely they are overwhelming there conventionally, that is the tripwire and the next one is the all-out one and this I am not prepared for, so NO strike for starters. Rather, a blockade" (and he had to get rid of some hotheads in the Air Force, notably Curtiss LeMay, precisely the SAC leader, which he did).

Therefore, I read it the other way, that is: "Since a strike will mean very probably an all-out exchange, then there will be no strike, *but* the missiles will go".

Anyway, this leads us away from the thread


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> My point was not about who had what weapons, what we know is that Kennedy actively considered using them, and certainly threatened to use them when he was dealing with the Cuban crisis.
> As far as I know, no other head of state is known to have threatened to use nuclear weapons, ever.


This is correct.
I suppose that Japan was not actually threatened they were just bombed.

.,,


----------



## 3.1416

WAIT!!!



psicutrinius said:


> Surely Khrushchev did not bring the missiles to Cuba just for fun?
> BUT YOU FIRST WROTE:
> * No Cuban was allowed to more than SEE (and guard) the things. *
> _ So? _
> 
> I feel like you're taking this personal.
> I don't think that's the point. Nor useful
> 
> 
> Sorry i haven't catched up yet.


----------



## 3.1416

I honestly don't believe on the media but...

...can i recomend a documentry called "The fog of war"?

It is not the bible but, it can help a little to understand a few things.


(and bible was writen by men anyway)


----------



## 3.1416

. said:


> This is correct.
> I suppose that Japan was not actually threatened they were just bombed.
> 
> .,,


 

I AGREE.

So, this shows that the selective 'clique' that has them is not fair at all

Si me contestan que "no fueron ellos sino, la gente que estaba antes", 
tengo un kilo de respuestas iguales.


Die-go


----------



## SpiceMan

. said:


> This is correct.
> I suppose that Japan was not actually threatened they were just bombed.
> 
> .,,


off-topic: Japan was actually warned to surrender unconditionally or face "prompt and utter destruction." However that undetailed warning was pretty routine-sounding. No wonder the Japanese dismissed the "warning statement."


----------



## Fernando

Alex_Murphy said:


> So then by your logic, everyone should have every weapon possible, and we will all be armed to our teeth and constantly a threat to one another, is that really how you see we should better ourselves as the human race?



I did not notice your answer before.

Quite on the contrary, Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

IF Iran and others have nuclear weapons, everyone should have every weapon possible, and to be armed to our teeth and constantly a threat to them.


----------



## hohodicestu

Hi,

Nuclear weapons or bombs should not even exist because they are used to kill people. Do you think that nuclear bombs can help to solve social and political problems? Definitely not, therefore not only Iran, but nobody should use nuclear weapons.


----------



## Fernando

In an ideal world, but you and me have arrived a bit late to prevent US, Russia, China, Pakistan and India to have nuclear weapons and I do not foresee they will throw the nuclear heads to the rubbish.

With this information as a data I would prefer none more should possess nuclear weapons, the smallest and the most terrorist the worst.


----------



## cuchuflete

Assume that Iran, or any other country that does not have nuclear weapons today, builds some.  What precise benefits will this bring to the world?


----------



## Fernando

NONE. As a matter of fact, I think will bring many bad things (among others it will urge other countries to build theirs).


----------



## psicutrinius

Re: Post 51 (from 3,1416):

"Surely Khrushchev did not bring the missiles to Cuba just for fun?" means exactly that

"No Cuban was allowed to more than see (and guard) the things", that is, the missiles were in Cuba but crewed by Russians and under their exclusive control. Cubans could see and guard them, but not shoot them (or prevent their being shot).

Unless you have come to the conclusion that I am a Cuban, (which would be a wrong one in any case), I cannot understand how you extract a conclusion from these two phrases that (your words), "I feel like you're taking this personal".

Would you please explain?


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:


> IF Iran and others



Define "others" please?
I live in Ireland.  We have two countries which are armed with nuclear weapons as our nearest neighbours. It is not always a comforting thought!

Why do you feel it alright that they should have them but if some "others" get them then "everyone should have every weapon possible"?


----------



## Fernando

I do not think it is alright. It is a fact.

Given this, I feel FAR FAR FAR more confortable with US, Russia, UK and (even) France than with Iran. If they have nuclear weapons, I think my country should prepare to have it, since every Spanish neighbour (Marocco, as an example) would have it.


----------



## maxiogee

Fernando said:


> I do not think it is alright. It is a fact.
> 
> Given this, I feel FAR FAR FAR more confortable with US, Russia, UK and (even) France than with Iran. If they have nuclear weapons, I think my country should prepare to have it, since every Spanish neighbour (Marocco, as an example) would have it.



What? If Iran gets nuclear weapons, Morocco would have them? Portugal too?

I don't see why one more country getting them scares you any more than the 'fact' that those that already exist are more than adequate to destroy our little blue dust mote swpinning, twinkling, in the sunlight.


----------



## fenixpollo

There are already enough nuclear weapons on the planet to kill every human 10 times.  How would we be in any MORE danger if more nuclear weapons were constructed?

One argument is that the American nuclear arsenal is in the hands of a rational, enlightened, democratic leadership; in a government that has a system of accountablity and checks & balances.  Iran, on the other hand, is a bunch of Muslim extremists. This argument is complete and utter nonsense. 

I'm not saying that Iran should have nuclear weapons, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to _why_ not.


----------



## Fernando

Because I trust (more or less) the decission making process in US/Russia and I do not trust this process in Iran (or I rather trust they will do the wrong decission -an ajatollah use-).


----------



## Fernando

fenixpollo said:


> One argument is that the American nuclear arsenal is in the hands of a rational, enlightened, democratic leadership; in a government that has a system of accountablity and checks & balances.  Iran, on the other hand, is a bunch of Muslim extremists. This argument is complete and utter nonsense.



I did not notice your post but it is exactly what I think. Sorry you think is nonsense.


----------



## psicutrinius

I have said before (and it seems to have gone unnoticed), that the problem with Iran having nuclear weapons (aside from the fact that NOBODY should have them, but as Fernando said earlier, we (all of us) have arrived here long since they were "on the table", and therefore this is a fact we have to live with, like it or not), is that yes, today's Iran (government) is the ayatollahs' clique and THAT is the problem. That and their "rationale" for having them.

An argument against Iran having nuclear weapons would be that if their government were more concerned with their subjects' wellbeing than their perpetuation in power, there are MANY things they could use the funds for, and that given the fact that (in the middle east) nobody can challenge them seriously (in terms of resources, population, territory), at least not the neighbors, why should they *need* the means of blackmailing everybody around?

Ah, and by the way, quoting Ahmadinejad:

He quoted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having said that if the United States wants to have good relations with Iran, it must "bow down before the greatness of the Iranian nation and surrender. If you don't accept to do this, the Iranian nation will force you to surrender and bow down."

That goes for "The Great Satan". What about the pygmies like us Europeans? This fellow is nuts, and proud of it besides.


----------



## maxiogee

With a bit of editing, this could be almost anywhere in the world.



psicutrinius said:


> An argument against *A* having *B* would be that if their government were more concerned with their subjects' wellbeing than their perpetuation in power, there are MANY things they could use the funds for, and that given the fact that (in *C*) nobody can challenge them seriously (in terms of resources, population, territory), at least not the neighbors, why should they *need* the means of blackmailing everybody around?


----------



## psicutrinius

OK.

And what about Ahmadinejad quote below the one you take from my post?


----------



## ireney

You mean is it much worse than 

"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror." (source) given the fact that some nations are more prone to use a pompous and ... grandiloquent style of speech than others?


----------



## maxiogee

psicutrinius said:


> OK.
> 
> And what about Ahmadinejad quote below the one you take from my post?



What about it?
It's the usual pompous guff one expects from pathetic 'statesmen' - Idi Amin was good at it.
Do you ever recall hearing a politician saying something along the lines of "We will never negotiate with terrorists!"? I do, I've heard it from politicians serving in the same government which had a minister in deep discussions with terrorists. You cannot take the pronouncements of politicians seriously.


----------



## psicutrinius

I get lost with some byzanthine nuances. I tend to call a spade a spade, and to believe that people should be prepared to live with their statements, all the more so if these go on record. He says what he says, and if he means otherwise he is a bit thick.

If on the other hand this was a bushism he made, he is as thick as the other one.

Everybody should keep in mind here that the trick of trying to counter a stupidity someone said by quoting another stupidity said by the other side does not bring anywhere. In other words, I don't care about your quote. And it is irrelevant here, I am afraid.

I am concerned that Ahmadinejad said that, precisely by what HE said means. Whether someone else said another "pearl" or not is irrelevant here


----------



## psicutrinius

Well, maxiogee, the problem is that idi Amin was a clown (in terms of inter nations relations: At home I am afraid it was another matter, but this is irrelevant here). But he had no nukes to play with. THAT is the difference


----------



## ireney

psicutrinius said:


> I get lost with some byzanthine nuances. I tend to call a spade a spade, and to believe that people should be prepared to live with their statements, all the more so if these go on record. He says what he says, and if he means otherwise he is a bit thick.
> 
> If on the other hand this was a bushism he made, he is as thick as the other one.
> 
> Everybody should keep in mind here that the trick of trying to counter a stupidity someone said by quoting another stupidity said by the other side does not bring anywhere. In other words, I don't care about your quote. And it is irrelevant here, I am afraid.
> 
> I am concerned that Ahmadinejad said that, precisely by what HE said means. Whether someone else said another "pearl" or not is irrelevant here




Since you understood that I quoted Bush to show that leaders of the world (*ahem*) say things that are not to be taken literally why the long post? (unless you want to take what both said literally in which case I would answer that I can't trust a person that issues that kind of ultimata [and has said other similary frightening things]}. That "pearl" is the President of the USA afterall)


----------



## psicutrinius

Let's see:

I say A is crazy
you say B is as crazy
ok

The point is not who is crazier, but whether A is crazy or not. And B is irrelevant here, crazy or not


----------



## Fernando

Agreed. 

- Let assume A is crazy (I disagree) and HAS nuclear weapons.
- B is crazy. Should it have nuclear weapons? 
- C, D and ...Z (some of them enemies of B) do not need nukes. Would it be unreasonable that they ask for nukes now.


----------



## cuchuflete

Still waiting patiently for someone to point out the benefits to humankind from expanding the ownership of nuclear weapons to include more countries that do not have them at present....

There seems to be general consensus that these are nasty devices that can do lots of harm.  Therefore, is our collective safety and security enhanced by spreading them around to more players?  

This question does *not* ask

- If you think G. Bush is a jerk or irrational;
- If you think Iran is as responsible, more responsible, or less responsible than Pakistan, France, or any other nation which has nuclear weapons;
- If you think mutually assured destruction prevented the Cold War from growing hotter.

It is really a simple question.  I'm not surprised nobody only a single person has yet offered a simple reply.


----------



## psicutrinius

I agree with you, Cuchuflete. The world wold be safer without ANY nukes

Furthermore, as the next best thing, the lesser, the better. Thus (at least) not a single one more (and better yet, the ones existing should at least diminish).


----------



## fenixpollo

Fernando said:


> I did not notice your post but it is exactly what I think. Sorry you think is nonsense.


 I agree that Iran's government is not trustworthy, but the part that is nonsense is that the US' government IS trustworthy. _Nobody_ with nuclear weapons should be trusted to use them responsibly (ie. to not use them).





psicutrinius said:


> I have said before (and it seems to have gone unnoticed), that the problem with Iran having nuclear weapons [...], is that yes, today's Iran (government) is the ayatollahs' clique and THAT is the problem. That and their "rationale" for having them.
> 
> An argument against Iran having nuclear weapons would be that if their government were more concerned with their subjects' wellbeing than their perpetuation in power, there are MANY things they could use the funds for, and that given the fact that (in the middle east) nobody can challenge them seriously (in terms of resources, population, territory), at least not the neighbors, why should they *need* the means of blackmailing everybody around?.


 I noticed it, and I asked you to prove that Iran's government doesn't have the well-being of its people in mind; that their rationale for acquiring nukes is to keep themselves in power; and that the people of Iran don't want nukes. You haven't offered any proof, which means that your arguments of "why not" are not necessarily valid.





cuchuflete said:


> Still waiting patiently for someone to point out the benefits to humankind from expanding the ownership of nuclear weapons to include more countries that do not have them at present....


 Nobody could argue that. What is being argued is, why the US and Europe are trying to force other nations to stop developing nukes; when it should be the other way around: the other nations should be forcing the US to stop owning nukes.


> This question does *not* ask
> - If you think Iran is as responsible, more responsible, or less responsible than Pakistan, France, or any other nation which has nuclear weapons;


 No, but that is part of the answer to the question in this thread, according to some posters.





> It is really a simple question. I'm not surprised nobody only a single person has yet offered a simple reply.


 Here's one: Outlaw all nuclear weapons.


----------



## psicutrinius

Fenixpollo, do you really believe that the Iranian Government have the wellbeing of their subjects foremost in mind, more so than perpetuating the Islamic creed (and expanding it) or (but I must concede here that this is my wicked western rationalism at work, and I might be wrong here: Idealists they might be, of course..) to use the religion as the means for clinging to the seats and demand their *subdits* whatever sacrifice, including life, so that they (the subdits, of course) may gain Paradise by doing whatever they order, because they do so in the name of God?. After all, religion is what brought them together, their "cohesive glue". 

There are many Iranians. So far as we know, NO ONE (no one staying there, that is) has stated that he disagrees with that. But I would not conclude that this means that there is unanimity.

And that reminds me of Franco's referendums and elections, where he always got in excess of 98% of "yes" votes (and over 90% of voters too). But this might also be my flawed perspective.

Yes, I have no PROOF that I am right. However, let's reverse the argument. Are you sure, or even, do you have grounds to believe, that the reverse is true? There WILL BE a litmus test here, later on. Once they get their program completed, we will see how many power nuclear reactors they make, and whether they have nukes or not. And I am afraid also that nobody will need to discover it. They will make it well known immediately.


----------



## cuchuflete

Why keep it simple when we can  complicate things?  Well...because some people prefer complications.  Why?  Because they do.  It's too complicated to simplify.   Oh?  really?



			
				Fenixpollo said:
			
		

> cuchuflete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting patiently for someone to point out the benefits to humankind from expanding the ownership of nuclear weapons to include more countries that do not have them at present....
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody could argue that. I suppose you haven't noticed the President of Iran, who clearly sees benefits.  Pesky complications.  What is being argued is, why the US and Europe are trying to force other nations to stop developing nukes; when it should be the other way around: the other nations should be forcing the US to stop owning nukes. I've noticed that argument.  I posted a simple question outside of that particular argument.  My question is in no way dependent upon the existence of that other, distinct argument.  You may try, illogically, to force my question to be a subset of some other question, but it still stands quite well on its own.  That doesn't invalidate the other argument, which can proceed in tandem.
> 
> 
> 
> This question does *not* ask
> - If you think Iran is as responsible, more responsible, or less responsible than Pakistan, France, or any other nation which has nuclear weapons;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but that is part of *the No. That is part of the particular way some people have chosen to approach their own answer.  * answer to the question in this thread, according to some posters.  So what?!  I could bring lots of other somewhat related matters into the conversation.  They might clarify or obfuscate the simple question I asked.  They are not requirements for an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> It is really a simple question. I'm not surprised nobody only a single person has yet offered a simple reply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's one: Outlaw all nuclear weapons.  That's a nice answer to a different question. I like that answer. It's a very fine answer.  It somehow doesn't quite tell me whether and which benefits for humankind will result from the acquisition of nuclear weapons by additional countries.  Did you mean to say, "None."?
Click to expand...


----------



## Outsider

I just wanted to chime in and agree with various posters here that nuclear weapons are a threat to life on Earth (forget democracy and Western civilization!), and the fewer there are of them around, the better. I am in favour of nuclear disarmament.
But if "we" want to convince other countries not to get nuclear weapons, we have to show that _we_ are serious about disarmament, too. Or else they just won't buy into all the talk.
On the other hand, Iran has claimed all along that it only wants nuclear energy for civilian, not military purposes. Has anyone actually proven otherwise?


----------



## .   1

Outsider said:


> On the other hand, Iran has claimed all along that it only wants nuclear energy for civilian, not military purposes. Has anyone actually proven otherwise?


It is very difficult to establish a negative.
How do you prove that you don't have something except by displaying the absence. The rejoinder will be 'yeah but just because you don't show us doesen't mean that you don't have it hidden somewhere else'.
We all have sad memories of the recent result that particularly curly piece of logic.
Australia is now going down the road of nuclear power but noone seems to be kicking up much of a fuss even though Australia does not have to import uranium as it has vast deposits of uranium.
No nuclear weapons should exist. That is obvious but we can not put the genie back in the bottle.
My vote is for the U.S.A. to have the only cache of such weapons and then to hope that as the U.S is already so powerful and secure as an identity that they will not feel the need to use the bombs (again) to bolster it's world dominating position.
I would much rather that the big kid up the front of the group has the weapons rather than the scared victim out the back with a saturday night special looking for revenge for perceived grievances.

.,,


----------



## 3.1416

psicutrinius said:


> Re: Post 51 (from 3,1416):
> 
> "Surely Khrushchev did not bring the missiles to Cuba just for fun?" means exactly that
> 
> "No Cuban was allowed to more than see (and guard) the things", that is, the missiles were in Cuba but crewed by Russians and under their exclusive control. Cubans could see and guard them, but not shoot them (or prevent their being shot).
> 
> *Entiendo este punto, es demasiado obvio que no se las iban a dejar asi nomas.*
> *Pero, Alguna vez someone McNamara se encontro años despues con Fidel frente a frente y le pregunto algo asi:*
> *"Fidel, tu sabes que con 2 misiles hubieramos borrado a Cuba de la faz del mapa, porque andabas tan valenton?"*
> *Fidel contesto mas o menos asi:*
> *"Pues, si, pero entonces, nosotros hubieramos borrado la tercera parte de USA al mismo tiempo y, eso les iba a doler. Mucho" *
> 
> *Entonces, entiendo que Fidel ("Cubano") tenia cierto poder de decision, no?*
> 
> Unless you have come to the conclusion that I am a Cuban, (which would be a wrong one in any case), I cannot understand how you extract a conclusion from these two phrases that (your words), "I feel like you're taking this personal".
> 
> *Your right top corner indicates that you are from Spain. That's also very obvious.*
> *Solo queria señalar que escribiste cosas contradictorias, eso o usted usa un sarcasmo poco comun.*
> *Y por la forma en que contesta, tal parece que se toma las cosas muy a pecho.*
> *Relax.  *


----------



## Blackleaf

Alex_Murphy said:


> It's not about the "nuclear" weapons for me, it's about that America is allowed to have them, but says other people aren't, and by that stance only I think Iran SHOULD have them, if America got rid of theirs, and then had a go at Iran, then I'd suggest they don't.
> 
> Double Standards.


 
I don't think Iran should have nukes.

I mean, Iran is an enemy of Britain and America and, if it was possible, would kill all Brits and all Americans and try to make the WHOLE WORLD an Islamic state under Sharia Law.

Who would you rather have nuclear weapons? A British Prime Minister or the Mad Mullahs of Iran (including a President whose name even sounds similar to the world "armageddon") who want to wage war against the West and Christianity? 

We've already had Islamofascists attacking the US with aeroplanes and bombing the London Underground and a London bus, but can you imagine Islamist terrorists with nuclear bombs?


----------



## Blackleaf

claudine2006 said:


> I'd like to have a peaceful world, so I think none should have nuclear bomb.
> But Iran should have nuclear bomb just because USA has.
> I'm extremely worried thinking about Bush's finger on the bomb button that can destroy the world. If also Iran has got nuclear bomb, this doesn't change my feeling of concern.


 

So it wouldn't bother you if President Ahmadinejad - who has an INTENSE hatred of Europe and America and Christianity - had nuclear weapons?


----------



## beclija

Blackleaf said:


> So it wouldn't bother you if President Ahmadinejad - who has an INTENSE hatred of Europe and America and Christianity - had nuclear weapons?


He might have hate for the West, but he isn't a Muslim if he hates Christianity. 


> I mean, Iran is an enemy of Britain and America and, if it was possible, would kill all Brits and all Americans and try to make the WHOLE WORLD an Islamic state under Sharia Law.


Now that is a conspiracy theory, to express it in a diplomatic way. 


> We've already had Islamofascists attacking the US with aeroplanes and bombing the London Underground


The Iran is not Al-Kaida, and there isn't any reason to compare them or to suppose they support each other. To the opposite, al-Kaida is a fanatic Sunni organization and hates Shia Muslims as much as atheists. I am sorry to be inable to paraphrase in a nice way, but your comment reveals your ignorance of Islam. It is worse than saying that "the Pope is an enemy of Britain because as a Catholic he supports the IRA" - these two at least belong to the same sect.

Edit: I think I haven't expessed it in this forum yet, so on topic: I don't think the Iran should have nukes, nor anyone else for that matter. It does somewhat worry me to hear that yet another country might soon be able to produce them, but it wouldn't make me feel much more comfortable if that country where Germany rather than Iran, and the stance of the US is, in my opinion, very hypocritic.


----------



## whatonearth

In my opinion, Iran *should* be allowed to develop its nuclear capacity if it wants to and it is not the place of the US or any other nation to say it cannot. Iran is its own country and makes it own decisions - it is incredibly patronising for other countries, mainly ones which have or have the capacity to build nuclear weapons already, to say that Iran are not allowed to do the same. It is simply *not our decision to make*, whether we like it or not. The more the rest of the world digs its heals in on this issue, the stronger the support for Iran's leader becomes and the desire for nuclear capacity intensifies.

Nuclear capacity is seen as a something of a 'badge of honour' (especially in the middle East), which is believed to command respect/fear in neighbouring countries (see India/Pakistan's nuclear-posturing a year or two ago). It is nothing more than a status thing really, in my opinion. 

In an ideal world we would have complete nuclear disarmament for all countries, but now the nuclear-weapons cat is out of the bag (so to speak) it's very unlikely this will ever happen. 

The real issue here is that the US don't like not being to have their own way and it is folly for them to try and force Iran's hand, otherwise it will just turn into ANOTHER front to continue fighting (and losing) hearts and minds in the Muslim world, perpetuating the "War On Terror". If the international community had not come down on Iran they way they have, this would not have snow-balled into the major diplomatic/political hot potato it is now...

Waita go US foreign policy...


----------

