Agree with everything!
Give me a good reason why Iran should NOT have nuclear weapons
- Thread starter deus3x
- Start date
Agree with everything!
i think it dosent matter who it is that wants the capability. ie if egypt wanted nukes then everyone else would then u have the whole middle east with thair finger on the trigger.
i do agree that it is a bit much of us to say who should have nukes and who shouldnt. its more upto the un, but then what the **** has the un done recently to deserve to bark out orders.
i do agree that it is a bit much of us to say who should have nukes and who shouldnt. its more upto the un, but then what the **** has the un done recently to deserve to bark out orders.
In the "world peace fantasy world" that everyone wants, nobody would want/need Nukes, but in the real world, a country has a nuke, you gotta ask yourself, why would they need it? if they have it, maybe we should too, they obviously know something we don't and if they plan to nuke us, we need something to retaliate with...
My nuke is much bigger than yours, My nuke can walk right through the door
My nuke is much bigger than yours, My nuke can walk right through the door
Deleted member 61728
Deleted member 61728
The big thing I don't get is why is Isreal allowed nukes whilst other countries such as Iran ain't allowed them?
Last edited by a moderator:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 14,081
- Location
- Between Realities
Yes, Do you really think nuclear armaments are safe in their hands. In comparison to our hands or the Americans? Security wise, Safety wise or Trust wise.
Last edited:
Well technically Israel never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty along with India and Pakistan, North Korea have but since withdrew.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
The reason is simple, we don't want them to have them and we can stop them. It is a bad government.
Why risk letting them have them when you don't have to.
Why risk letting them have them when you don't have to.
It's quite nice and idealistic to say "well if we've got them, why shouldn't they?", and I agree that in an ideal world, nobody would have any nukes, but that's not really realistic given the current situation.
But letting Iran have them really would be likely to lead to disaster. They're mental.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...jad-in-the-words-of-the-Holocaust-denier.html
But letting Iran have them really would be likely to lead to disaster. They're mental.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...jad-in-the-words-of-the-Holocaust-denier.html
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 47,173
[TW]Fox;21296559 said:
I think this is the main concern IMO.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
[TW]Fox;21296793 said:
fixed and it's OK for them to have nuclear weapons.
Iran should have the right to develop nuclear power as should ever other nation. Nobody should have nuclear weapons but the horse has bolted before the stable door was shut.
Personally I'm more concerned about Israel having nuclear weapons. That country is bat**** crazy.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
They were not allowed, they developed them covertly. Now we are stuck with it.
Given the track record of nuclear weapons I don't think the US have any right to be governing/ judging who has them.
Only two nuclear weapons have been used in the course of warfare, both by the United States near the end of World War II. On 6 August 1945, a uranium gun-type device code-named "Little Boy" was detonated over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later, on 9 August, a plutonium implosion-type device code-named "Fat Man" was exploded over Nagasaki, Japan. These two bombings resulted in the deaths of approximately 200,000 Japanese people—mostly civilians—from acute injuries sustained from the explosions.
Also look at Israel and the monstrous crimes they have done in Palestine and continue to do this very day.
It is clear to me who the aggressor/ terrorist is!
Only two nuclear weapons have been used in the course of warfare, both by the United States near the end of World War II. On 6 August 1945, a uranium gun-type device code-named "Little Boy" was detonated over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later, on 9 August, a plutonium implosion-type device code-named "Fat Man" was exploded over Nagasaki, Japan. These two bombings resulted in the deaths of approximately 200,000 Japanese people—mostly civilians—from acute injuries sustained from the explosions.
Also look at Israel and the monstrous crimes they have done in Palestine and continue to do this very day.
It is clear to me who the aggressor/ terrorist is!
They're as bad as each other, any of way of looking at it is foolish.
Somebody had to be first to use them or we wouldn't be quite so acutely aware of how utterly awful they are. Had America never used them in World War 2 then how succesful would MAD have been in the Cold War? Would the Soviets instead not have been tempted to use them, etc etc.
You do know its possible to disagree with the way Isreal conducts itself *AND* recognise why a nuclear armed Iran is a bad thing, right?
Only two nuclear weapons have been used until someone uses the third. Let's hope that day is long in coming. If Iran gets nuclear weapons then Saudi Arabia will want them, and what can anyone do to stop them?
This.
In an unstable region it would be asking for trouble. The world would be a better place if no one had these bombs but at least (bar Pakistan) they are in sensible hands at the moment and there is no real danger of some **** pushing them over the edge. Iran is just a mess, the whole region is and it would be one step away from a world wide nuclear war allowing a country like that to have bombs.