Should Iran be allowed to create nuclear weapons?

Sykk

I've seen some people argue in other threads that "America is the threat to world peace" and "Leave the Iranians alone, Israel are the real scum" etc etc.

For those of you who are in favor of leaving them alone.

Do you think they should be allowed to create nuclear weapons? You know they hate the western world so much so that they'd probably start firing them in this direction the second they don't start getting their demands?

I for one say no. Whatever about the USA and others having nuclear capabilities... I don't think a country ruled by religion should be given such capabilities. Do you?

FatherLen

nobody should be allowed to create nuclear weapons.

Seachmall

It could be argued they should and also that they shouldn't.

But in these circumstances "Fuck No" is a perfectly valid answer in place of a reasonable argument.

So, Fuck No.

DarkJager

No ****ing way. The views they hold on the western world are enough to justify them never having this sort of weaponry.

AngryBollix

Seachmall wrote: »

It could be argued they should and also that they shouldn't.

But in these circumstances "Fuck No" is a perfectly valid answer in place of a reasonable argument.

So, Fuck No.

Why?

Which country is the only one to ever use them?

foxyboxer

Surely you mean the creation of nuclear 'power' and not 'weapons'?

GowlBag

Damn straight they should.

Napper Hawkins

Not really for me to say whether they should or not.

But the idea that anyone who believes in an afterlife or armageddon scenarios can have access to nuclear weapons scares the **** out of me.

Seachmall

AngryBollix wrote: »

Why?

Which country is the only one to ever use them?

I don't really care which country is more likely to use them as long as that country won't use them against this country.

You can argue about "fairness" and "bullying" all you want, but I'm not in the habit of giving likely enemies weapons of mass destruction.

AngryBollix

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

Not really for me to say whether they should or not.

But the idea that anyone who believes in an afterlife or armageddon scenarios can have access to nuclear weapons scares the **** out of me.

The country that gives the US the biggest diplomatic hard on at the moment have them (i.e pakistan)

Morlar

Seachmall wrote: »

I don't really care which country is more likely to use them as long as that country won't use them against this country.

You can argue about "fairness" and "bullying" all you want, but I'm not in the habit of giving likely enemies weapons of mass destruction.

They are not my enemy. They are not an enemy of Ireland.

44leto

Not necessarily, there has been a number of wars involving nuclear power against non nuclear powers since WW2. The USA/ Korean Vietnam Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia/ Chechnya, China/ Vietnam, Britain Argentina, France/ Algeria and Israel/ Egypt Jordan Lebanon and Syria.

None of these nuclear powers used nuclear weapons they all fought conventional wars. I think there would be huge reluctance on any nation deploying such a weapon, it really would make that nation a pariah forever.

Personally I would rather see no power with these weapons, so no I am not for any enlargement of the nuclear club.

Seachmall

Morlar wrote: »

They are not my enemy. They are not an enemy of Ireland.

We are enemies by proxy.

If we get hit in the crossfire it's more likely to be from their side.

AngryBollix

Seachmall wrote: »

I don't really care which country is more likely to use them as long as that country won't use them against this country.

You can argue about "fairness" and "bullying" all you want, but I'm not in the habit of giving likely enemies weapons of mass destruction.

I doubt the Iranian government wake up every morning worrying about the irish position on nuclear armaments.

Our nearest neighbour use nuclear power. There poses a far likelier threat to our safety than any iranian programme.

Crooked Jack

Sykk wrote: »

I've seen some people argue in other threads that "America is the threat to world peace" and "Leave the Iranians alone, Israel are the real scum" etc etc.

For those of you who are in favor of leaving them alone.

Do you think they should be allowed to create nuclear weapons? You know they hate the western world so much so that they'd probably start firing them in this direction the second they don't start getting their demands?

I for one say no. Whatever about the USA and others having nuclear capabilities... I don't think a country ruled by religion should be given such capabilities. Do you?

The US was ruled by the religious right for years. Not to mention the fact that they are the only nation to have ever actually used nuclear weapons (barring some french incident I'm not entirely sure of the details of) If anyone cant be trusted it's them.
Nobody should have nuclear weapons, they are expensive, dangerous and frankly obsolete in an era when the biggest threat to a nation is from small internal groups.
Russia's stockpile did prevent the Beslan massacre.
America's arsenal didnt stop 9/11.
Trident in Britain didnt foil the 7/7 bombings.
They should all be done away with and given that America sees itself as a world leader they should be the first to decommission their deadly arsenal.
After that any nation attempting to build them should face serious sanctions. But for America to dictate who can and cant have them while they continue to stockpile the biggest arsenal in the world (not to mention funding Israel's psychotic programme) is hypocrisy of the highest order

AngryBollix

Is it just me or is this becomng a re-run of WMD

Sykk

Morlar wrote: »

They are not my enemy. They are not an enemy of Ireland.

You know if they were to fire them at a European Country their first target would be Britain.

Should a nuke land in Britain, depending on the winds.. We'd be just as badly affected.

Morlar

Seachmall wrote: »

We are enemies by proxy.

If we get hit in the crossfire it's more likely to be from their side.

Iran has never killed Irish peacekeepers or used Irish passports to carry out illegal executions in foreign territories. Claiming Iran is threatening Ireland by proxy is hysterical bullshít, the sort of things that warmongers say to try to get people onboard with attacking a country which has never, ever threatened us or our people in any way shape or form whatsoever.

stimpson

Nuclear weapons for some, miniature american flags for others.

Seachmall

Morlar wrote: »

Iran has never killed Irish peacekeepers or used Irish passports to carry out illegal executions in foreign territories. Claiming Iran is threatening Ireland by proxy is hysterical bullshít, the sort of things that warmongers say to try to get people onboard with attacking a country which has never, ever threatened us or our people in any way shape or form whatsoever.

We're an in close proximity of a likely target.

We are enemies by proxy.

44leto

stimpson wrote: »

Nuclear weapons for some, miniature american flags for others.

With Intel inside.

Morlar

Seachmall wrote: »

We're an in close proximity of a likely target.

We are enemies by proxy.

First, Iran has never fired a nuclear weapon at another country. Second they have never fired a nuclear weapon at Britain. Third they have never threatened to fire a nuclear weapon at Britain. It's a ludicrous, hysterical proposition.

AngryBollix

Sykk wrote: »

You know if they were to fire them at a European Country their first target would be Britain.

Should a nuke land in Britain, depending on the winds.. We'd be just as badly affected.

Have they got that kind of firepower?

Seachmall

Morlar wrote: »

First, Iran has never fired a nuclear weapon at another country. Second they have never fired a nuclear weapon at Britain. Third they have never threatened to fire a nuclear weapon at Britain. It's a ludicrous, hysterical proposition.

If push does come to shove I'd rather not have nuclear weapons flying in my direction.

I'm not suggesting push will come to shove, only that if it does I don't want nuclear weapons flying in my direction.

Stiffler2

I think every human should get 1 nuclear weapon. Might liven things up a bit around here.




Hydrogen Fusion bomb is where it's at

Sykk

AngryBollix wrote: »

Have they got that kind of firepower?

Yes. Iran is in possession of Ballistic Missiles

44leto

AngryBollix wrote: »

Is it just me or is this becomng a re-run of WMD

No they are definitely developing these weapons the loon has even publically stated it.

I can see his point of view, Ahmadinejad has watched an invasion of Iraq and Israel have about 150 warheads. Perhaps Iran having the bomb will keep the peace. These weapons did keep the "cold war" cold, but we did come very close to Armageddon on a few occasions, 2 incidents been an error.

I would worry more about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal more then I would worry about Iran's pending one.

Morlar

Seachmall wrote: »

If push does come to shove I'd rather not have nuclear weapons flying in my direction.

I'm not suggesting push will come to shove, only that if it does I don't want nuclear weapons flying in my direction.

There are too many if's in your posts on this subject, in my view. It would also be incorrect to assume Iran is the only viable threat, or most likely threat to this country. Iranian politicians speak hot air and rhetoric, if you actually look at the respective record of Iran and other countries in the region, the ones to be wary of are the ones where the politicians say and claim one thing and then privately engage in the exact opposite. Iran is not a threat to this country. Neither were Iraq, Libya, Bahrain, Egypt etc. Not one of them has ever threatened this country engaged in killing it's citizens, using it's passports to carry out international murders etc.

AngryBollix

44leto wrote: »

No they are definitely developing these weapons the loon has even publically stated it.

I can see his point of view, Ahmadinejad has watched an invasion of Iraq and Israel have about 150 warheads. Perhaps Iran having the bomb will keep the peace. These weapons did keep the "cold war" cold, but we did come very close to Armageddon on a few occasions, 2 incidents been an error.

I would worry more about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal more then I would worry about Iran's pending one.

Then why isnt the same level of pressure being applied to the pakistani authorities?

Seachmall

Morlar wrote: »

There are too many if's in your posts on this subject, in my view. It would also be incorrect to assume Iran is the only viable threat, or most likely threat to this country. Iranian politicians speak hot air and rhetoric, if you actually look at the respective record of Iran and other countries in the region, the ones to be wary of are the ones where the politicians say and claim one thing and then privately engage in the exact opposite. Iran is not a threat to this country. Neither were Iraq, Libya, Bahrain, Egypt etc. Not one of them has ever threatened this country engaged in killing it's citizens, using it's passports to carry out international murders etc.

I'd prefer if nobody had nuclear weapons but if I had to pick one country to have them I'd rather pick a much friendlier country.

And my position is based on a very, very small chance of shit hitting the fan but I believe that when facing even the smallest possibility of annihilation: fuck objectivity and fairness, just survive.

AngryBollix

Morlar wrote: »

There are too many if's in your posts on this subject, in my view. It would also be incorrect to assume Iran is the only viable threat, or most likely threat to this country. Iranian politicians speak hot air and rhetoric, if you actually look at the respective record of Iran and other countries in the region, the ones to be wary of are the ones where the politicians say and claim one thing and then privately engage in the exact opposite. Iran is not a threat to this country. Neither were Iraq, Libya, Bahrain, Egypt etc. Not one of them has ever threatened this country engaged in killing it's citizens, using it's passports to carry out international murders etc.

Iran isnt a real threat. At least not now.

stimpson

AngryBollix wrote: »

Then why isnt the same level of pressure being applied to the pakistani authorities?

They already have a bomb. Check out what happened after the North Koreans tested a nuke. No more sabre rattling from the US.

The Snipe

Consider: America, have one of the largest nuculear stockpiles in the world - and they are trying to stop other people using them?! It makes no sense.

And don't forget Americans are the only ones to ever have actually used them. Not that a lot of them seems to care, considering their army is made mainly out of rednecks anyway with a "Just nuke the fcukers" Attitude.

AngryBollix

stimpson wrote: »

They already have a bomb. Check out what happened after the North Koreans tested a nuke. No more sabre rattling from the US.

Whats going to happen if and when the Iranians test their nuke?

44leto

AngryBollix wrote: »

Then why isnt the same level of pressure being applied to the pakistani authorities?

Because they already have them and so has their big enemy India. But the country is unstable and the Taliban are moving in.

I don't know what the Taliban would do with an access to about 200 nuclear bombs and a missile system capable of delivering them. That to me is the nightmare.

AngryBollix

XiledSniper wrote: »

Consider: America, have one of the largest nuculear stockpiles in the world - and they are trying to stop other people using them?! It makes no sense.

And don't forget Americans are the only ones to ever have actually used them. Not that a lot of them seems to care, considering their army is made mainly out of rednecks anyway with a "Just nuke the fcukers" Attitude.

Hypocrisy personified?

AngryBollix

44leto wrote: »

Because they already have them and so has their big enemy India. But the country is unstable and the Taliban are moving in.

I don't know what the Taliban would do with an access to about 200 nuclear bombs and a missile system capable of delivering them. That to me is the nightmare.

How would the taliban gain access to the pakistani nuclear stockpile?

Spacedog

nuclear technology should be available for anyone to progress scientific discovery and the knowledge of humanity. Using the technology as a weapon deplorable. However, any country in possession of nuclear weapons has no moral authority to claim another should not be allowed to posses them.

Sykk

XiledSniper wrote: »

Consider: America, have one of the largest nuculear stockpiles in the world - and they are trying to stop other people using them?! It makes no sense.

And don't forget Americans are the only ones to ever have actually used them. Not that a lot of them seems to care, considering their army is made mainly out of rednecks anyway with a "Just nuke the fcukers" Attitude.

This is a ridiculous argument that's been made a few times so far.

Despite the loss of life. They were right to use them in the scenario that unveiled.

Japans "God" Emperor wouldn't stop fighting, though the USA wanted to and lets not forget who attacked first eh?

Thousands of Japanese lives =/= Thousands of American and Japanese lives.

Smcgie

This is a country that stone women to death over religious beliefs and 54% of people think that they should be allowed equip themselves with Nuclear weapons?

I hope this poll is not serious..

AngryBollix

Smcgie wrote: »

This is a country that stone women to death over religious beliefs and 54% of people think that they should be allowed equip themselves with Nuclear weapons?

I hope this poll is not serious..

The US electocute their citizens instead

Seachmall

Spacedog wrote: »

However, any country in possession of nuclear weapons has no moral authority to claim another should not be allowed to posses them.

I really don't get this mentality.

Are people of the opinion that it's only "fair" to let them have nuclear weapons because the US and Britain do?

Jesus, that's a fucking moronic position to take.

AngryBollix

Sykk wrote: »

This is a ridiculous argument that's been made a few times so far.

Despite the loss of life. They were right to use them in the scenario that unveiled.

Japans "God" Emperor wouldn't stop fighting, though the USA wanted to and lets not forget who attacked first eh?

Thousands of Japanese lives =/= Thousands of American and Japanese lives.

If you are excusing the use of nuclear weapons by the us why should anyone else be any different?

AngryBollix

Seachmall wrote: »

I really don't get this mentality.

Are people of the opinion that it's only "fair" to let them have nuclear weapons because the US and Britain do?

Jesus, that's a fucking moronic position to take.

The opposite position is hypocritical

fedor.2.

AngryBollix wrote: »

The US electocute their citizens instead

Thats called progress

AngryBollix

fedor.2. wrote: »

Thats called progress

The electric chair and lethal injection is progress?

stimpson

AngryBollix wrote: »

Whats going to happen if and when the Iranians test their nuke?

I assume the yanks will cool their boots.

fedor.2.

AngryBollix wrote: »

The electric chair and lethal injection is progress?

Yep, much more efficient, dont you think?

AngryBollix

stimpson wrote: »

I assume the yanks will cool their boots.

How?

AngryBollix

fedor.2. wrote: »

Yep, much more efficient, dont you think?

And how long do they spend on death row beforehand and how much does that cost?

Seachmall

AngryBollix wrote: »

The opposite position is hypocritical

"Hypocritical"?

Jesus Christ...