Why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons?

Here we go again, another round of warmongering against Iran. You could hardly blame them for wanting to have a ‘nuclear deterrent’. After all, other nations have managed to aquire nuclear weapons without facing the threat of pre-empitve strikes.

Wouldn’t the world be safer if Iran had nuclear weapons?

Its the old, nuclear weapons are dangerous so you shouldnt develop them because that would be proliferation. However as we have them already thats you cant expect us to unilaterally disarm, especially because we are a democracy and everyone knows that democracies are fair, dont engage in torture or special rendition and dont attack other countries without just cause (are you listening to me at the back there Tony and George?) not like those sneaky vodka drinking, football club buying commies

Wouldn’t the world be safer if Iran had nuclear weapons?

Hell no.

It would make Israel think twice about repeating the Dimona attack, it may also make the US think again about expanding its’ military presence in the region.

And this also points out one of the major flaws in the pro nuclear power arguments. We must have loads more nuclear reactors to stop the lights going out but Iran is not allowed any.

Its hypocrisy and I do not believe for a moment that Iran is even attempting to build a nuclear bomb

Its hypocrisy and I do not believe for a moment that Iran is even attempting to build a nuclear bomb

Really? In that case,care to buy a job lot of used helmets?

TJ + 1 tis a load of toss.

If I was running Iran I would definitely be trying to build nuclear weapons. History shows that we don’t (directly) attack/invade countries that do…

Would the world be safer? 50/50 really. Impossible to say for sure.

Its hypocrisy and I do not believe for a moment that Iran is even attempting to build a nuclear bomb

I think the story is that everyone is there with you TJ – Iran aint trying to build the bomb per se, but what they are deffo doing is building nuclear capability.
they say its purely for reactors, but the western believes that its also the technology & enrichemnt capacity & designs to be capable of building a bomb and producing weapons grade fissile material as a sideline to their reactor programme

ohnohesback – Member
Wouldn’t the world be safer if Iran had nuclear weapons?

Iran would be safer if Iran had nuclear weapons – and for that reason alone you can hardly fault them for developing them.

I do not believe for a moment that Iran is even attempting to build a nuclear bomb

Well you are certainly in the minority there, even if they are not trying to build them they are trying to develop the capabaility to do so if they want.

If Iran have nukes Saudi will up their game, god only knows what Israel will do, and erm… well, Iran would have nukes. Remember what the Mullahs did when their own people started to protest. Yep, they shot loads of them. I am pretty sure they wouldn’t be so kind to hostile foreigners who are trying to impinge on their sovreignty.

Nukes never make the world safer, they just alter the balance of power.

Really? In that case,care to buy a job lot of used helmets?

I also have a bit of real estate in London for sale. Small footprint, but it’s a standout on the skyline. You heard of Big Ben?

I don’t think the world would be safer but then I don’t think it would any more dangerous either.

Tactically it would be unusable as any deployment would lead to pretty much the destruction of Iran. Who they gonna launch it at, Israel? America have got their back and Iran would be destroyed in retaliation. NATO? Same end result, destruction of Iran. Anyone else I can think of would lead down the same path.

The only tactical use that I can see is that it helps protect them slightly against a land invasion as they have a nuclear deterrent, but even then the moment they deploy anything nuclear their future would become pretty bleak.

Iran have the option to develop Nuclear technology for power generation under the guidance of the west.
They choose not to take up this offer because they are attemtping to generate nuclear weapons. I think if Iran have such weapons they will not simply use them for defence however I would be suprised if they got to that stage as I think Israel will pre emt it.

Its a frightening scenario.

How would we feel if we had to develop our nuclear facilities along the lines set by, and offer them up to, inspection by Iran?

Having a bomb is not the same as having the delivery capabilty to put one on us.

It doesn’t do much to help the west secure its oil supplies from the middle East and so I expect we’ll be invading them next under some pretence or the other.

Probably pretty pissed off seeing as they openly threaten their neighbours and kill their own people if they protest.

I understand what you are saying from an equality and fairness point of view, why should any one country not be allowed to pursue it’s own agenda without interference from the outside world but the rulers of Iran are nutters whom even their own people would depose if they didn’t get massacred every time they tried.

Should psycopaths have the bomb?

Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. Currently they are likely in breach of the treaty (non-cooperation) which is what all the fuss is about.

Israel, India, Pakistan never signed it. North Korean withdrew from it in 2003. South Africa joined in 1991 and dismantled its weapons.

“The impetus behind the NPT was concern for the safety of a world with many nuclear weapon states. It was recognized that the cold war deterrent relationship between just the United States and Soviet Union was fragile. Having more nuclear nuclear-weapon states would reduce security for all, multiplying the risks of miscalculation, accidents, unauthorized use of weapons, or from escalation in tensions, nuclear conflict.”

Source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

EDIT

ohnohesback – Member
How would we feel if we had to develop our nuclear facilities along the lines set by, and offer them up to, inspection by Iran?

We do; under the terms of the NPT all our nuclear facilities, peaceful or other wise, are open to inspection to the IAEA.

You could argue that in the case of the USA they have, and former USSR they did.

As for delivery systems, nuclearising scuds or ‘D’PRK medium range missiles would be the quick and dirty option, along with a fall-back RDD option for storage in the embassies located in the captitals of likely agressors.

Are these like the weapons Saddam Hussein had that we were told about…?

The ‘World’ might be a bit safer if Iran had nukes, cos then that might put the West off from invading them for their oil. As well as hopefully deterring Israel from launching an attack.

Israel is the biggest threat to stability in the Middle East. Disarm Israel, and a whole load of tension will ease overnight.

The ‘World’ might be a bit safer if Iran had nukes, cos then that might put the West off from invading them for their oil. As well as hopefully deterring Israel from launching an attack.

Given the rhetoric the threat appears to come form Iran aimed at Israel. I dont have any doubt that Iran would strike first at Israel hence my comment above that I dont think Israel will let it get that far.

Israel is the biggest threat to stability in the Middle East. Disarm Israel, and a whole load of tension will ease overnight.

I would never defend Israel but to say the middle east would be peaceful if they werent there is rubbish.

Do they have them – no.
Are they trying to acquire them – probably.
Should they have them – no.
Should anyone have them – no.
What should we do – nothing, let the UN and Arab league sort it out.

To be fair, the course of direction right now is quite right. Everyone is rightly worried, Iran is a unstable nation amoungst other unstable nations with a known hatred of Israel. The UN and Arab League are picking up the Gauntlet and running with this. The US and EU won’t touch Iran on their own – completly different kettle of fish when compared to Iraq / Afghanistan. Same can be said about Syria.

Disarm Israel, and a whole load of tension will ease overnight.

Now that is just plain silly.

When did Iran last make an aggressive act? something like attacking another country?

Who has killed the most people in the region in the last 25 years?

Why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear weapons?

same reason you wouldn’t give a baby a knife!

Who has killed the most people in the region in the last 25 years?

At a guess, Arabs?

At a guess, Arabs?

Is there something you’ve missed?

jruk

Try again. Try a couple of million Iraqis and many hundreds of thousands of afghanis and Libyans killed mainly by the UK and the US

Disarm Israel, and a whole load of tension will ease overnight.

Actually he’s right as Israel would not last a night without the threat. Their neighbours would tear them apart.

That sounds high to me TJ – directly or indirectly? indirectly I could believe. Proof?

I really cant belive how incredibly naive some people are. Would the world be safer is Iran had nuclear weapons ….Jeez.

In an ideal worls nobody would have any and that is where we need to aim for. So no they damm well should not have any.

Its even worse where countries have nuclear weapons when that might actually use them. The guy is a power crazy nutter and while I don’t think he would be that stupid to try and use them I would really rather prefer that he didn’t have the choice.

Nuclear weapons are a danger to the human race and the less the better. I just wish someone would take them of Israel too.

Indirectly since 1990 – thats all excess deaths ie including the increased child mortality and the decreased life expectancy and all the extra deaths from disease.

the lancet got 650 000 between 2003 and 2006 in iraq alone ( mostly direct)

http://web.mit.edu/CIS/pdf/Human_Cost_of_War.pdf

Interesting TJ

as a comparison, I don’t suppose theres any data on premature deaths in Iraq due to Consanguinity related genetic defects?

Just asking like… be interesting to compare.

The genie is out of the bottle as they say.

Is it ever going to be possible to stop the spread of nukes in the long term? Probably not.

Also, I think you need to consider why the west has nuclear weapons, they were created to face the greatest threat the World has ever faced and once you have them what do you do?

Personally, I would be happier if no-one had them but that’s not going to happen. I can understand why Israel wants them, their neighbours have repeatedly called for their complete destruction. The problem is if Israel is seriously threatened by a nuclear Iran I have no doubt they would perform a pre-emptive strike.

I think that the best solution would be for all the Middle Eastern protagonists to be forced to get rid of their nukes but that is not going to happen.

Try again. Try a couple of million Iraqis and many hundreds of thousands of afghanis and Libyans killed mainly by the UK and the US

Indirectly since 1990 – thats all excess deaths ie including the increased child mortality and the decreased life expectancy and all the extra deaths from disease.

I think you need to quote both of those together otherwise it’s a rather misleading statement IMO. No more excusable but misleading.

Anyway, what’s the relevance of ” premature deaths in Iraq due to Consanguinity related genetic defects”? Is interfamily marriage a significant issue there?

Its funny how Iran have to defend their decisions from the only people to have actually used a nuke(usa) and Israel whos leader is regarded by france and america as a liar. And he used to dress as a woman to shoot plo members bitd! I say let them defend themselves.

Clubber – they are still dead as a result of US / UK actions.

if it wasn’t for Klaus Fuchs and Morris Cohen, The russians wouldn’t have developed the atomic bomb as quickly as they did (or at all for that matter) and we could potentially be living in a different world today.

Tactically it would be unusable as any deployment would lead to pretty much the destruction of Iran. Who they gonna launch it at, Israel? America have got their back and Iran would be destroyed in retaliation. NATO? Same end result, destruction of Iran. Anyone else I can think of would lead down the same path.

That’s the rational argument for not taking action to stop them developing nuclear weapons- the assumption that they would have to be mad to use them.

However how rational do we think the rulers of Iran are? How prepared would they be to martyr their nation in order to destroy Israel?