Why can't Iran and North Korea Have Nukes?

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

ok first of all, let me say that I do not advocate the development of nukes in any way. I think the world should be disarmed of such weapons, with US and Russia leading the process.

What pisses me off is that the US want to monopolize nukes so that only them and their allies could use it but nobody else can. The NPT is horribly messed up. How could you allow only 5 nations to monopolize nukes? This creates a dangerous power imbalance.

Ok I keep hearing the argument that the US allies are good and will only use nukes for defense purposes while the bad guys want to start a nuclear armageddon. First of all, I don't buy this for one second cause I live in America and I know a lot of Americans who say that the US should nuke every country on Earth to solve its "problems"...

Also I hate how people use the word "deterrent". They keep saying that Israel and the US's allies only use nukes as a "deterrent" while Iran and North Korea wants to use it to threaten its neighbors...

First of all, a deterrent works because your enemy knows you're going use it, not because you won't use it. My brother won't piss me off because he knows I'm going to beat him (i wont but just for the sake of argument...) Even if I'm bigger than him, he wont hesitate to piss me off if he knows I'm not going to do anything about it.

I don't think Iran and North Korea is stupid enough to nuke its neighbors... The US nuke arsenal is a serious threat... Even if nukes were given to terrorists, we all know that us warheads would blanket the middle east in seconds... also, i dont know how the terrorists would use nukes on a large scale except with government help. i mean i guess they could use suitcase nukes... Point is, noone is is stupid enough to start stupid stuff with a highly explosive weapon knowing retaliation could be brutal. Stop thinking that the bad guys are stupid cuz their really not...

Also, I hate how people think America never considers the use of nukes as valid military options... They have thousands in their arsenal for a reason... Correct me if i'm wrong and i may be but i dont recall the US taking steps to reduce its arsenal since the end of the Cold War.

Which brings me to another point. I know many will disagree but I think that since nobody wants to disarm nukes, every country should have nukes. Yes call me crazy, but i think this would even out the power balance and highly discourage anyone from starting anything stupid.

i would feel more secure in a room with a bunch of guys pointing guns at each others faces than in a room where theres 5 guys with guns and im disarmed... if everyone poses a threat, the power balance is evened out and noone will do anything stupid. of course, id rather be in a room where theres no guns involved at all but since this is impossible...

the cold war is a perfect example of this. the us and ussr both fear each others power so a major world war was avoided. if only one party had nukes, then one country would be controlling the world right now, almost like how the us is the world police. As a result of mutual fear, START was created and both parties started disarming some nukes.

point is, id like to know wat people think of this. i honestly think it would be better if more countries were equipped with nuke arsenals. if i was the pres of some country, i would develop nuke capacity also. i refuse to let international powers bully me around because they have thousands of warheads at their disposal.

[Gromovnik]

Well, they can have all the nukes they want, as far as I'm concerned.

[Grof]

who says they cant have nukes?

a the ones with waaay more nukes then them.

[dogukan]

who says they cant have nukes?

a the ones with waaay more nukes then them.

who says people should not resist the will of the bully?

Thats how humanity advanced

[Confederate Jeb]

every country should have nukes

Yes, let every crazy and insane dictator have nukes. And the terrorists too, why should they be left out.

It's not because they are stupid that we don't wnat them to have them, it's because they will try to do something, and the EU or the UN won't do anything to stop them once they have done something.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Yes, let every crazy and insane dictator have nukes. And the terrorists too, why should they be left out.

It's not because they are stupid that we don't wnat them to have them, it's because they will try to do something, and the EU or the UN won't do anything to stop them once they have done something.

uhm the us will not hesitate to retaliate.

people who say iran and north korea shouldnt have nukes because theyr crazy, please read my post more carefully. my basic argument is that theyr not crazy enuff to let the US retaliate with superior arsenal.

[Da Skinna]

Some players are rational some are not.

America had a scare about getting into nuclear war... they are scared rational.... some dictators are just so out there this rationality thing doesn't really tick tock to them.

But basically, we haven't realized that nuclear war means planetary extinction...

[MKT-Smokescreen]

The idea behind more countries from being given nuclear power has quite clear reasoning.

The fact is - except from the USA - no country with nuclear weapons for offensive purposes; therefore it is quite safe to say that they intend to use them only for defense.

North Korea shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons because it's led by an autocratic dictatorship with no constitutional or legislative restraints, a situation whose dynamics when combined with nuclear weapons is a complete (and dangerous) unknown.

Iran should not have nuclear weapons because their constitution states that one of the goals of the Iranian state is to commit genocide against all Israelis and jews.
Now I don't know about you, but I don't feel comfortable allowing a nation whose constitution not only allows, but demands, genocide to have nuclear weapons.

Frankly, no country should be allowed nuclear weapons. Now that we in fact do have them however, we should try our hardest to prevent further nuclear proliferations. The nations currently with nuclear arsenals have proven that they will only use them to defend, not to attack (excepting of course the USA), in that said nuclear weapons have never been used as a deterrent.

From your views on deterrence avoiding a war between the USA and ther USSR it sounds like you are happy with the current balance of power.
Theoretically, if any nation uses nuclear weapons now, every other nuclear power will retaliate as such.

I say "Theoretically" because all strength from this policy evaporates when it no longer becomes theorretical. If it's put into practice, the entire idea of deterrence will be shaken to its bones.
Giving more nations nuclear weapons increases the risk of their being used, therefore it is best we stick with the safe and secure, tried and tested model that we currently have.

[dogukan]

Iran should not have nuclear weapons because their constitution states that one of the goals of the Iranian state is to commit genocide against all Israelis and jews.
Now I don't know about you, but I don't feel comfortable allowing a nation whose constitution not only allows, but demands, genocide to have nuclear weapons.
.

No...in fact Iran has Jews in their country, even in the parliement.

[BoJaN]

No...in fact Iran has Jews in their country, even in the parliement.

Correct, and if I remember correctly, has the biggest Jewish population out of all Muslim countries. Lets not forget that fact that the U.S has had a more aggressive foreign policy then Iran, making your argument a tad unreasonable (MKT-Smokescreen).

[MKT-Smokescreen]

Correct, and if I remember correctly, has the biggest Jewish population out of all Muslim countries. Lets not forget that fact that the U.S has had a more aggressive foreign policy then Iran, making your argument a tad unreasonable (MKT-Smokescreen).

I said that the USA was the exception to my arguement . . . twice.

The Nuclear bloc is far larger than just the USA and Russia, even if those two nations hold the majority of nuclear devices in existence.

[mongrel]

Iran should not have nuclear weapons because their constitution states that one of the goals of the Iranian state is to commit genocide against all Israelis and jews.

Where is the evidence for this?

The last time Iran invaded any country was the war with Russia, 1826-28, carried out with British encouragement. They are hardly a belligerent nation.

[Caelius]

Where is the evidence for this?

The last time Iran invaded any country was the war with Russia, 1826-28, carried out with British encouragement. They are hardly a belligerent nation.

I am fast growing tired of this smokescreen (and quasi Strawman) of an argument being thrown up in defense of Iran every time their wrongdoings are rightly asserted.

Iran is far from being a non-belligerent and peaceful nation. Period.

To paraphrase from Barnaby......anyone stating otherwise is in need of counseling.

[The Dude]

North Korea can't have nukes because the country is ruled by a mentally unstable dictator who might decide to just bomb the crap out of Seoul if he gets out on the wrong side of the bed one morning.

[BoJaN]

ok first of all, let me say that I do not advocate the development of nukes in any way. I think the world should be disarmed of such weapons, with US and Russia leading the process.

What pisses me off is that the US want to monopolize nukes so that only them and their allies could use it but nobody else can. The NPT is horribly messed up. How could you allow only 5 nations to monopolize nukes? This creates a dangerous power imbalance.

Ok I keep hearing the argument that the US allies are good and will only use nukes for defense purposes while the bad guys want to start a nuclear armageddon. First of all, I don't buy this for one second cause I live in America and I know a lot of Americans who say that the US should nuke every country on Earth to solve its "problems"...

Also I hate how people use the word "deterrent". They keep saying that Israel and the US's allies only use nukes as a "deterrent" while Iran and North Korea wants to use it to threaten its neighbors...

First of all, a deterrent works because your enemy knows you're going use it, not because you won't use it. My brother won't piss me off because he knows I'm going to beat him (i wont but just for the sake of argument...) Even if I'm bigger than him, he wont hesitate to piss me off if he knows I'm not going to do anything about it.

I don't think Iran and North Korea is stupid enough to nuke its neighbors... The US nuke arsenal is a serious threat... Even if nukes were given to terrorists, we all know that us warheads would blanket the middle east in seconds... also, i dont know how the terrorists would use nukes on a large scale except with government help. i mean i guess they could use suitcase nukes... Point is, noone is is stupid enough to start stupid stuff with a highly explosive weapon knowing retaliation could be brutal. Stop thinking that the bad guys are stupid cuz their really not...

Also, I hate how people think America never considers the use of nukes as valid military options... They have thousands in their arsenal for a reason... Correct me if i'm wrong and i may be but i dont recall the US taking steps to reduce its arsenal since the end of the Cold War.

Which brings me to another point. I know many will disagree but I think that since nobody wants to disarm nukes, every country should have nukes. Yes call me crazy, but i think this would even out the power balance and highly discourage anyone from starting anything stupid.

i would feel more secure in a room with a bunch of guys pointing guns at each others faces than in a room where theres 5 guys with guns and im disarmed... if everyone poses a threat, the power balance is evened out and noone will do anything stupid. of course, id rather be in a room where theres no guns involved at all but since this is impossible...

the cold war is a perfect example of this. the us and ussr both fear each others power so a major world war was avoided. if only one party had nukes, then one country would be controlling the world right now, almost like how the us is the world police. As a result of mutual fear, START was created and both parties started disarming some nukes.

point is, id like to know wat people think of this. i honestly think it would be better if more countries were equipped with nuke arsenals. if i was the pres of some country, i would develop nuke capacity also. i refuse to let international powers bully me around because they have thousands of warheads at their disposal.

Yep...to spread democracy of course.

[Justice and Mercy]

Because Iranians and North Koreans would be/are dangerous to us with nukes

Don't care about "fairness", this is real life.

[Shams al-Ma'rifa]

Because Iranians and North Koreans would be/are dangerous to us with nukes

Don't care about "fairness", this is real life.

just like the US and friends are dangerous to Iran and North Korea...

[Justice and Mercy]

just like the US and friends are dangerous to Iran and North Korea...

That's fine.

Don't care if we're a danger to them, I don't want them to be a danger to us.

That's rational.

[BoJaN]

just like the US and friends are dangerous to Iran and North Korea...

Correct, but they weren't fortunate enough to become a superpower.

[Mikelus Trento]

For the same reason you don't give a 3 year old a loaded gun.