Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Spread of Nuclear weapons

Options
  • 27-07-2006 12:43pm
    #1
    banaman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 127 ✭✭


    http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F71AC309-E5FE-41E7-B6CA-758B0E160227.htm

    How can the West justify this and yet insist that Iran and N. Korea cannot have a nuclear programme? Aside from the hypocrisy of "democracy, accountability our allies"?
    Is this in any way tied to Pakistan's decision to update its own nuclear capability, and how will it impact on security in the region?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Dg101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 123 ✭✭Dg101


    Well, India already has nukes, so, if they were going to spread nuclear weapons around they wouldn't need American nuclear reactors. They have enough material and technology of their own. Policies about nuclear programmes seem to be based on no real logic, other than that only countries that the West likes can have nuclear anything. Unless, like North Korea, they're willing to face sanctions.


  • Options
    #3
    Saruman
    Registered Users Posts: 11,389 ✭✭✭✭Saruman


    Its pretty simple.. Iran etc are run by terrorist organisations.. in fact did the Iranian president not call for Israel to be wiped from the map??

    The point is the Nuclear countries do not want any MORE countries going Nuclear and they themselves are supposed to be dissarming their own warheads as they know a nuclear war can not/should not ever happen as if it did it would be the end.

    You think a suicide bomber cares though?


  • Options
    #4
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,397 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Actually, the deal doesn't seem to be far different to the one that Iran rejected: Import the fuel. But yes, since India already has nukes, any possible damage from this is limited.

    NTM


  • Options
    #5
    Nuttzz
    Registered Users Posts: 3,775 ✭✭✭Nuttzz


    When did Kim ll Jong last stand for election?


  • Options
    #6
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Manic Moran wrote:
    But yes, since India already has nukes, any possible damage from this is limited.

    Limited to freeing up their own production capacity from civilian use, that is.

    I wonder whatever they might do with that spare production.....

    This is one aspect I can't understand. The US is against new nations acquiring nuclear capability, but apparently cares not one whit about making it simple for existing nuclear powers to upgrade and upsize their arsenals.

    jc


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Dar
    Registered Users Posts: 763 ✭✭✭Dar


    Saruman wrote:
    Its pretty simple.. Iran etc are run by terrorist organisations.. in fact did the Iranian president not call for Israel to be wiped from the map??

    The whole "Israel must be wiped from the map" phrase was the result of a mistranslation seized apon and widely publised by the US and Israel. The correct translation was more along the lines of "Israel must pass from the pages of history". Still not very friendly, but nowhere near as inflamatory as it has been made out to be.


Advertisement