Is it right the west stops others having nuclear weapons...

[Britisocialist]

Is it right the west stops others having nuclear weapons when we have nuclear warheads ourselves?

[Denny Crane!]

Is it right the west stops others having nuclear weapons when we have nuclear warheads ourselves?

Now that is one hell of an interesting question.

The most common answer is surely not if there is a possibility that the state in question will knowingly or unknowingly release them to terrorists. One which at present I am incapable of rebuking.

Peter

[removeduser_487563287433]

Might is right.

[Marcus Scaurus]

Countries like the USA, Israel and France know how to deal with the power they have (the power to throw a nuclear weapon on any country), countries/organisations like Iran and Al-Qaeda not.

[MasterAdnin]

Countries like the USA, Israel and France know how to deal with the power they have (the power to throw a nuclear weapon on any country), countries/organisations like Iran and Al-Qaeda not.

First of all, the United States is the only country ever to drop and atomic bomb. Second, Iran doesn't have enough money or military strength to fight a nuclear war. That being said, western countries do this just for their own good. They know that if they can keep other countries from having nuclear weapons, then they can use their own as a threat.

Peace,
Adnan

[Hub'ite]

First of all, the United States is the only country ever to drop and atomic bomb. Second, Iran doesn't have enough money or military strength to fight a nuclear war. That being said, western countries do this just for their own good. They know that if they can keep other countries from having nuclear weapons, then they can use their own as a threat.

Peace,
Adnan

Yes as been said a million times, America is the only country to drop an atomic bomb. What would any other country have done if they were in the United States shoes? Risk millions of casulties on both sided or 200,000? America made the right choice by dropping the bombs. Iran isn't a very stable country like the US and The West. We don't need nukes in the hands of insane, unstable countries.

[MasterAdnin]

Yes as been said a million times, America is the only country to drop an atomic bomb. What would any other country have done if they were in the United States shoes? Risk millions of casulties on both sided or 200,000? America made the right choice by dropping the bombs. Iran isn't a very stable country like the US and The West. We don't need nukes in the hands of insane, unstable countries.

You know that Japan was ready to surrender right? They were going to surrender as it is, but the United States had to take a rash action before consulting with Japan. Plus, Iran is in no position to wage war on any Western power, let alone shoot off a nuclear warhead at one.

Peace,
Adnan

[Nationalist_Cause]

Yes as been said a million times, America is the only country to drop an atomic bomb. What would any other country have done if they were in the United States shoes? Risk millions of casulties on both sided or 200,000? America made the right choice by dropping the bombs. Iran isn't a very stable country like the US and The West. We don't need nukes in the hands of insane, unstable countries.

Iranians and their government are not insane. Continuing to say so may make it more true in your own mind but won't change the reality that they are perfectly reasonable and logical people. Think about how silly they sound when they call us the Great Satan. Don't you find it odd that they level the same insults at us as we do at them?

Its all a matter of perception. Both sides of this potential conflict are reasonable, sane, logical, intelligent human beings.

[Erik]

What would any other country have done if they were in the United States shoes? Risk millions of casulties on both sided or 200,000?

I think most countries would first demonstrate their new A-bombs to the Japanese in a low-population area (wipe a small Island off the map?).
And then say: surrender OR we wil destroy a city.

Why did they have to wipe out TWO cities to demonstate how powerfull the A-bomb is?
(awnser: because they were still angry because of pearl harbour so they took revenge on innocent civilians).

[Red Harvest]

I think most countries would first demonstrate their new A-bombs to the Japanese in a low-population area (wipe a small Island off the map?).
And then say: surrender OR we wil destroy a city.

Are you kidding? In WWII? Most countries would have happily nuked Japanese cities at the time and in the same circumstance. Don't confuse modern day Europe or Asia with the nations that had just fought excruciatingly bloody wars and had suffered greatly.

Why did they have to wipe out TWO cities to demonstate how powerfull the A-bomb is?
(awnser: because they were still angry because of pearl harbour so they took revenge on innocent civilians).

Wrong answer. The second bomb was dropped to give the illusion that we could drop more whenever we wanted (when in fact we could not...as we didn't have any more on hand yet.)

It in fact gave Japan an honorable way out, since it proved that it could not even defend itself from such an attack. If you've ever read up on what the Japanese had planned for defense in the invasion, you would understand why there was strong military justification for this.

To subdue Japan the nation was first to be starved--not very pretty. Which also meant that all of our POW's would likely have starved (and there were something like 100,000+.) Also, the Japanese leadership had issued orders to execute all POW's in the event of an invasion (and we knew this, so starving Japan also would have given some time.) After starving the population and continuing to attack manufacturing (all those civilian workers) as well as armed forces, we would then have to land and fight our way across each island. Japan had trained civilians to resist and had been fairly effective at brainwashing them, as mass suicide of Japanese civilians in outlying islands had shown.

So while it might appear inhumane, hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives were saved, as well as hundreds of thousands of American lives. This ignores what would have happened had Russia invaded the home islands.

It doesn't change the horror of the bomb, but there are far worse ways for civilians to die in war. The difference is that this was a conventional war concluded by using nuclear weapons. It has in effect ended direct conflict between super powers.

[Mercellus]

First of all, the United States is the only country ever to drop and atomic bomb.

What about the USSR when they were testing like in Kazakhstan.

[Mangalore]

What about the USSR when they were testing like in Kazakhstan.

Guess the foreposter meant "on a city".

The main problem is however not mainly about the distribution of nuclear weapons but about the distribution of nuclear technology and what kind of suspicions are sufficient to prevent said spread of nuclear tech. At the moment esspecially the later is pretty random. It seems paranoia seems to be the main influence on this, not necessarily unreasonable paranoia but certainly subjective one.

By the statutes of the non-proliferation treaty every signator country of the non-nuclear club is allowed and encouraged by the nuclear powers to pursue the civilian use of nuclear power. So e.g. it is Iran's right to have a civilian nuclear program by treaty so uran enrichment and reactor building is plainly not illegal in and of itself.

However the problem here is that alot of this is dual-use components in a way. If someone can build a reactor he also aquires enough knowledge to guess how to blow stuff up. It doesn't matter much about wether he ever wants to do that, a healthy nuclear industry allows for a smooth jump to become nuclear. Experts on this estimated for example that Japan or Germany could become full nuclear powers within weeks if they really put their mind behind it.

The situation with Iran is similar. Once they have built reactors and a good industry going and have refined their missile capacity there is little in the way to go nuclear in a short time.

Still, everything surrounding Iran is based on suspicion and what is constantly ignored is that we made that country sign the NPT by granting them the right for civilian nuclear power in the first place. None would have signed this treaty without having at least that right and so if no compromise is reached it is actually quite understandable that Iran will leave the NPT simply because they don't get the benefits they assumed garantueed but afterwards being denied to them.

And herein lies a fatal flaw in the current system. We don't like the Iranian regime? well, we can do that, but still they are our treaty partners so if we bully them for wanting their share from the treaty we shouldn't be surprised that they don't like it and won't react kindly to it.


Otherwise I don't think there is a bigger danger that Iran uses nukes offensively or gives them to terrorists than there was for the Soviet Union(the Soviet Union leaders never earnestly considered using their nukes as they always knew they might get away second place in the shootout, for Iran or North Korea it would be even worse). It is plainly not in the self-interest of nations to give away such powerful weapons to unreliable groups like Al Qaeda, esspecially if such weapons can be easily traced. Equally Iran is also aware of the ramifications of actually using nukes and asside from being hardline theocrats Iranian clerics always have retained a pragmatic edge over the last decades meaning they grasp the difference between reality and spirituality.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Is it right? what kind of question is that?


Is it fair? nope
Is it smart? yes
Is it better for everyone? hell yes.

[Red Harvest]

Is it right? what kind of question is that?


Is it fair? nope
Is it smart? yes
Is it better for everyone? hell yes.

Pretty much sums up my sentiment.

[God]

I doubt Iran would risk attacking anyone with a nuclear weapon unless they want to start WW3.

And yes, America can be trusted with them...

[Mr.Flint]

I doubt Iran would risk attacking anyone with a nuclear weapon unless they want to start WW3.

And yes, America can be trusted with them...

Here is the problem, attacking anyone with a nuke wont prompt a ww3...

[Drunken]

I look at it like Corporal_Hicks has.

Its maybe not fair, but in my opinion its for the best for everyones safety. Some countries are more unstable and more likely to have something bad happen if they are in possession of a nuclear weapon. There is the problem of terrorism in many countries and civil war in a few, and general unrest which could escalate in a few.

So its probably for the best that some of the more stable and "sensible" ( for lack of a better word ) countries (which I suppose wouldnt need to be the west, but currently is) prevent others from having them.

[God]

Here is the problem, attacking anyone with a nuke wont prompt a ww3...

OK, maybe not a world war, but I'm pretty sure if Iran attacked someone with a nuke a pretty nasty war would follow.

[infernalbob]

this is how i see it:

lets say no one has nukes. there are 100 nukes god it going to give to 1 country and let them do whatever they feel like w/ them. (just and example)

who should have them? a country like U.S. who will NOT go and drop them off just for the hell of it. And they might use it as a way to make themselves look bad ass and kind of boss others around, but the truth is, we're not evil enough to drop them off and kill inoccent people for no reason.

now if those 100 nukes were given to a freakin country like Iran, and no one else had them. Of course they would use them for no good reason. That's a country you can't trust to have nukes. THEY WOULD kill innocents people and all that stuff.

my opinion: Yes, it is right that the west and it's eu allies have nukes and doesn't allow other countries like Iran to have them. If i was president, i would have nuked the living crap out of Iran, Iraq, and pretty much any other terrorist related country long time ago. ( and this would include untrusty Russian)

again though this is my opinion, and i hope no one gets offended.

[Torment]

I doubt Iran would risk attacking anyone with a nuclear weapon unless they want to start WW3.

That's part of the problem, eh? You 'doubt' it, as in you're not sure, but you don't believe (or want to believe) they'd use them. Is such a guess worth millions of lives?

I do think we should stop others from having nukes. We're the only ones who know how to combine power with responsibility. Even though we could have the world at our feet, we try to prevent the world from falling into chaos, we give food to the hungry, medicine to the wounded, we stage peacekeeping operations etc etc. Do you think countries such as Iran or North Korea would do the same?