Give me a good reason why Iran should NOT have nuclear weapons

The problem is they are in a fix. They are classed as anti-west and having seen what happens to anti west countries (Iran/Afghanistan/Libya etc) they are probably understandably worried about what may happen to them. If they have nuclear weapons then the likelihood of them being attacked reduces substantially...

Iran itself isn't anywhere near as bad as so many seem to think, most is just rhetoric and pandering to the voters like every other nation...
 
Iran is a country full of really nice people but with an increasingly more bizarre government suffering from lots of internal political issues, as we saw the last time they tried to have an election.
 
If Iran does develop nuclear weapons, do they even have the capability to hit the US, or even the UK?
 
Xordium said:
Only one country has used nuclear weapons in anger, they also don't abide by Geneva Conventions and flatout refuse to sign them, they promote terrorism in certain parts of the globe, they openly prosecute their interests with extreme prejudice across the globe, they bully their "allies" with one-sided extradition treaties, support regimes that use torture and violence against their own populations, etc And then people wonder why at face value using proven evidence like this that some countries want to protect their interests against such interference. Can hardly blame them can you. I would prefer it if Iran didn't have nuclear weapons, I would also prefer a regime change there but it's all stick and no carrot and has been for a longtime. A complete failure in diplomacy has got us to this situation.
Click to expand...
 
So essentially your argument is that because you disagree with the actions of one country where you don't live, any other country in the world should be allowed to whatever they want with impunity?

Bizarre.

An Iranian Nuclear programme would not afford them any additional protection against the US as they well know. It's not about the US.
 
Dist said:
If Iran does develop nuclear weapons, do they even have the capability to hit the US, or even the UK?
Click to expand...

Their current missile technology could probably reach parts of Europe but I don't think they can hit the US at this time. However, missile technology is something they are investing heavily in.
 
[TW]Fox;21296817 said:
So essentially your argument is that because you disagree with the actions of one country where you don't live, any other country in the world should be allowed to whatever they want with impunity?

Bizarre.
Click to expand...

What is bizarre is how you come to that interpretation.
 
[TW]Fox;21296817 said:
So essentially your argument is that because you disagree with the actions of one country where you don't live, any other country in the world should be allowed to whatever they want with impunity?

Bizarre.
Click to expand...

To be fair I read that as the US's stance on Iran is hypercritical due to their own failings (especially during the Bush era). I think that most people will agree US policy towards Iran over the last thirty/forty years hasn't achieved anything and maybe they should try striking a more conciliatory tone.
 
shine said:
I think that most people will agree US policy towards Iran over the last thirty/forty years hasn't achieved anything and maybe they should try striking a more conciliatory tone.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I agree with that as well.

I've noticed some bizarrely unhelpful 'news stories' from them in recent weeks. During the previous IAEA visit last month from absolutely nowhere the head of the CIA or something made some weird statement about how Iran could absolutely decide to launch a terrorist attack on the USA. I mean what? Where did that come from and why?
 
[TW]Fox;21296793 said:
Iran is a country full of really nice people but with an increasingly more bizarre government suffering from lots of internal political issues, as we saw the last time they tried to have an election.
Click to expand...
Pretty much spot on. The people are great, and the regime, in effect, has created its own downfall with the state-manufactured baby boom after its war with Iraq.

The regime is crazy, would probably not act according to mutual deterrence. The argument of 'if we're allowed nuclear weapons, why aren't they?' is just pathetic. We are a civilised Western democracy, they are a dictatorial theocracy. If you think the president of the United States having a nuclear football is the same as the supreme leader of Iran having something similar, then you need to go and do a bit more reading. There's that, plus the fact that THE REGIME SAYS IT DOESN'T WANT THEM, AND ISN'T TRYING TO CREATE THEM, and has been legally bound to that effect by the UN and the IAEA, plus the mountain of agreements with the EU. But, it's no secret that states only comply with international law when its in their interest to do so, perhaps that last point is moot.

I think an attack against Israel by a nuclear Iran is unlikely, far more likely is an Iranian claim of Bahrain as its Kuwait (something along the lines of what Saddam Hussein did in 1990/91). The difference between an Iranian annexation and an Iraqi one would be that Iran would wait until it has a nuclear weapon before doing so. Fortunately for us, Saddam was so insane that he decided to move in when he did, because if he didn't, he would have been in possession of a nuclear weapon. Perhaps there will be another Desert Shield to protect Saudi Arabia, or perhaps that wouldn't even be possible...

The only thing I know is that I think the potential downside to allowing Iran to get a nuclear weapon is great than the potential downside to preventing them from doing so.
 
Iran's nuclear technology won't be ready for missiles for years to come, at least 1 or 2. And even then it will be nothing like the capabilities of other nuclear counties in it's range or impact effect. I'm not saying we should dismiss the danger of Iran as they are most definately a country full of hatrid for almost every other counrty it would seem. What we need is a different perspective than what is being taken at the moment that if we dont roll in to Tehran all guns blazing that we are all going to die a nuclear death, which is the way things would seem to be going due to the aggressive behavior of Israel and also the US. People think of Iran as a somewhat militarily weak country that we could take overnight but it is far from it. All of the hatrid they have built up has shown in thier military which is over 1 million strong and thier defences would be strong beyong belief.

The only solution I can see it the one that everyone else is dismissing, negotiation. Belive it or not the President of Iran is actually more of a western supporter than you may think and it's the crazy beardy man that controls him that has the real hatrid of the west, Israel etc. If we put some real effort in to talking this out we might actually get somewhere. And not the UN, Un sanctions are about as much use as a chocolate kettle.
 
One only has to lookback at president Armadinejads recent speeches at the un to realise that Iran having nuclear weapons would be a bad thing.
 
physichull said:
One only has to lookback at president Armadinejads recent speeches at the un to realise that Iran having nuclear weapons would be a bad thing.
Click to expand...

All politics is local politics at the end of the day the bloke says what he want to achieve his goals which at the moment is keeping his head on his neck as the clerics want him out and the post of president gone. That was said for internal consumption. The bloke got elected by promising the poor the earth - he has never appealed to the middle-classes - he models his speech ideas on Hitler ... that's no joke.

If we are to judge countries by the speeches of their elected leaders then what are we going to do about all the senate members calling for war when their own intelligence services say there are no nukes or evidence of plans to even go down that route ...
 
Isn't it more to do with what Iran intends to do with the waste from their domestic production. Wouldn't they like to stick it on the end of a missile and lob it to one of their friendly neighbours?
 
Xordium said:
All politics is local politics at the end of the day the bloke says what he want to achieve his goals which at the moment is keeping his head on his neck as the clerics want him out and the post of president gone. That was said for internal consumption. The bloke got elected by promising the poor the earth - he has never appealed to the middle-classes - he models his speech ideas on Hitler ... that's no joke.

If we are to judge countries by the speeches of their elected leaders then what are we going to do about all the senate members calling for war when their own intelligence services say there are no nukes or evidence of plans to even go down that route ...
Click to expand...
Exactly (broadly anyway). He has also provided the poor a hell of a lot in his time in power as well, which is one of the reasons he is currently the president. We see lots of protests by the middle class city folk who are generally anti Armadinejad, not the majority in the smaller towns and villages that voted him in. At least that is my understanding after talking to several anti Armadinejad Iranians...

The US (and west) are one of the major contributors to Irans want of nuclear weapons... Isreal and US sabre rattling over the years have essentially given the Iranian leaders little choice (in their mind) but to develop something that will hopefully secure their independence. It's like the ICC putting crimes on the heads of state leaders and then wondering why the leaders refuse to leave until the bitter end (e.g. Gadaffi and Assad... If Assad ever loses power he will be arrested either by the Syrians themselves or the ICC... He is going to have a better chance fighting it out in Syria than going in to exile, because, well he won't be allowed to.).
 
Last edited:
No country should have Nuclear weapons. The first countries to develop them developed them because they were in the middle of wars "the other side started to develop them so we need to".
Which has started a nasty and very vicious circle. At most, USA/France/Uk etc are fairly stable, and it would take something extremely out of the ordinary for any of those countries to use the Nuclear weapons.
However, Iran and Israel and other countries mentioned are not 'stable' in any way, all it takes is for a civil war to break out-other country steps in-crazy guy leader doesn't like that-BOOM...
 
In an ideal world no country would have nuclear weapons.

However Iran should be prevented from having them at all costs. Unlike the US, I think there's a good chance that nutjob in charge would actually use them.

For all those whinging about Israel, don't forget that the US would never sanction them actually using any of the nukes they stock. I'm not defending the fact that they have them, just saying that it's something to consider.
 
Because they are the bad guys and we are the good guys, hoo rar

rL5Ou.jpg



Wake up Sheeple
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom