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

Ricochet J said:
Should Iran have a civil nuclear programme? Absolutely yes.
Should Iran develop nuclear weapons? Absolutely no.
Will Iran develop nuclear weapons? I'll make my mind up following IAEA inspections.
Should Israel give an absolute answer to their nuclear capabilities? Yes.
Should Israel show signs of reducing their nuclear arsenel? Yes.
Click to expand...

The inspections were carried out in November. The IAEA inspectors concluded Iran's nuclear programme still has military dimensions but there is no concrete evidence that they are actively developing nuclear weapons.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/inte...me-iaea-report
 
Iran needs nukes, if they dont get them then how long before the good people of the world (those who spread democracy in oil filled countries) pay Iran a long visit.
 
Why are countries like Iran trying to get there hands on nuclear weapons decades after everyone else?Most of the countries who do have them are trying to reduce/ dispose of they're nuclear weapons.

I think most will agree that the world would be a better place without them, nations should be focusing they're time and resources on space travel/ exploration.
 
It simply comes down to the fact that I as a citizen of a sovereign country don't want any unsavoury countries to have access to nuclear weapons. It isn't about their rights, it's about our rights to not have to worry about this country having nukes. It isn't about fairness, it's about how we percieve Iran to be incapable of safely controlling nuclear weapons
 
Amnesia said:
Iran needs nukes, if they dont get them then how long before the good people of the world (those who spread democracy in oil filled countries) pay Iran a long visit.
Click to expand...

And then the same logic is used by countries who then feel they need nukes to defend themselves against Iran. This could include the likes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Azerbaijan. This is why the NNPT exists in the first place.
 
Iran shouldn't have nukes because they don't subscribe to the same moral values as the real world, they are lead by an absolute nutcase and are an unstable nation at best.

Dangerous.
 
scorza said:
And then the same logic is used by countries who then feel they need nukes to defend themselves against Iran. This could include the likes of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Azerbaijan. This is why the NNPT exists in the first place.
Click to expand...


I see your point but Iran really does need them, I'm not saying I'd like to see them with nukes but ......
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;21298302 said:
Thats the huge issue which I touched on earlier, isn't it? We can't give ours up until everyone else is giving up as well, which is a long way off. It's an incredibly difficult and delicate situation.

Imagine the Western powers decided tommorrow that that was it - all nuclear weapons they had would be destroyed.

That would leave us in a world where the only people who posses such horrible and dangerous weapons would be Israel, North Korea and Pakistan.

Doesn't that sound awesome?

Nobody else can be allowed to develop Nuclear weapons. Not Iran. Not Ireland. Not Germany. Not Australia. Not anyone. When we developed nuclear weapons we opened a can of worms which we really shouldnt have opened and which is
really a very difficult task of closing again. Opening more cans of worms is not the way out.

The challenge of nuclear weapons is a topic thats thwarted decades of people far, far smarter than us lot.
Click to expand...

This
 
coltpython3 said:
which means israel is even more dangerous! if israels nukes arent being monitered how do we know they arent being sold to the highest bidder?
Click to expand...

They have had them for quite a while now and not sold any, they have also been in a couple of wars and not used them either. So whilst we would all prefer them not to have nukes they seem to be acting reasonably responsibly with them so far.
 
Last edited:
OldCoals said:
Rendition, Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Libya.........shall I go on?
Click to expand...
Ahh... The hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze. You're obviously not a fan of the reversal of American policy, to one of emancipating the people and locking up the dictators in Iraq and Libya, obviously you preferred it when it was the other way around? And I say this as someone that certainly considers himself to be on the left.

It's so, so cheap. As soon as you start talking about how disgusting 9/11 was, or the invasion of Kuwait, or some other atrocity carried out by a Middle Eastern country, you hear someone on the left pipe up with, 'Oh, but... What about East Timor?' It's pathetic.
 
[TW]Fox;21298346 said:
100% agree.

That said the whole scientist thing is a bit odd. Blatantly obvious, crudely executed operations against low ranking scientists in positions of no influence seem entirely pointless to me. All they've done is... generate sympathy for the Iranian cause....

WAIT... am I doing that conspiracy thing here? :eek:
Click to expand...

Uh huh, call me cynical but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Iran are responsible for these assassinations.
 
Ricochet J said:
You understand cultures and sayings aren't universally constant outside the borders you reside in? There are lots of sayings in Farsi, Arabic, Urdu, Punjabi, whatever, which have awful direct translations, such "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map..." which have different meanings from the source language.

And you also understand Iran does not recognise Israel, but recognises it as "occupied Palestine"? It's part of Iran's wider move to allow everyone to recognise this. In that context can you tell me that what Amhadinejad said is the same as the English understaning of wiping another country off the map?
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand all of that - although wasn't aware of the contentiousness of this particular translation. However according to this, he's had many opportunities to clarify it but not done so. He's obviously happy for it to be interpreted in that way. In any case, my own reading is that there is no difference in his eyes from the 'regime' and the 'jewish state of israel'. So those saying that he actually meant the regime makes no difference.

Over the years I've done lots of reading around to get my own independent view of the formation and history of Israel. Frankly nobody comes out of it smelling of roses - not the British, the UN, the Americans, the Jewish state nor the Arab nations.

To get back to the original question, in an ideal world nobody should have nuclear weapons. However, Israel has had them for over 40 years now and has shown a level of restraint with their use. I personally wouldn't feel confident that the current Iranian leadership would show the same restraint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom