Why can't Iran have nukes?
 

OK, for the record, I don't think they should have them either.

BUT to play devil's advocate, like, why can't they have them? That's like me trying to get a group of webmasters to stop LAMike from buying another Ferrari .... That wouldn't fly. What's so illegal about another country wanting what the rest of the world has?

are you new?

WTF does a country like Iran need nukes for? And... the rest of the world doesn't have nukes. There are plenty of countries that don't have nukes.

I think the idea is to keep the # of nukes in the world down to at least what they are now, and not go having every upstart dictatorship and monarchy out there having them.

should the US have them? If countries like Korea, Russia & China gave them up then I suppose there would be no need for them at all. Since that's not likely to ever happen I guess the US needs them also. But why have more and more countries signing on? Especially one like Iran who hasn't actually been all that stable or trustworthy over the past 30 years.

I'd say that it's because it's American foriegn policy to tell other countries how to live and what they can and can't have but then an American would come and tell me that it's none of my business what America does.

:thumbsup

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Cuz they probably would not hesitate to use them even if it was not waranted :2 cents:

yes i realize that, but i mean, isn't that a crock of shit too?

i think that by LAMike owning more than 1 car that costs over $100k that he can hurt people's feelings, so I declare he shouldn't be allowed to buy another.

what are the chances of me getting this injunction?


ya see... it doesnt make sense... its The Man trying to keep someone else down if you think about it.

Well, Iran signed the crock of shit. If they didn't want to be held accountable, they probably shouldn't have signed it.

thats exactly it, i take it as a security precaution

Because this is a window of opportunity

Yes, but "probably" is pretty vague, and anyone can say that about anyone really. And so it should apply to anyone if that's the case. I could say that the US would "probably" use a nuke or two if there's a world war... hey wait...

isnt russia going to sell Iran that stuff?

i wasnt aware that they signed it... what did they get in return for promising to stay old-school tech?

Absolutely right... ya didn't make sense :winkwink:

Because they are all freaks

yes, my post count was hacked

Your analogy is a bit cockeyed, as you're comparing a world safety issue with some sort of financial/capitalistism-with-overtones-of-communism/dictatorship thing. It does not compute.

In my opinion Iran is a country that shouldn't be trusted with nukes. Period. Look back at it's history over the past 30 years and then argue this point with me, if you can.

It's very simple actually.
Would you like to have the dude down the street who is in and out of rehab and that you know is always high on some drugs, own a rocket launcher, a few ak-47 and a few couple of pounds of C4?
I don't think you would feel confortable. I know I wouldn't.

Why does a country like Israel need them?
Self protection everyone knows they would use them against Syria or Egypt if they try anything again and Israel was losing.

Why did North Korea want them?
Again who would want to fuck with a country with nukes when you know they are stupid enought to use them.

I believe the thinking behind it now is... the world doesn't need more countries with nuclear capability.

And I agree with that thinking. I would prefer that we had less countries sporting nukes, but since that isn't likely to happen anytime soon I'll settle for the next best thing, that being not having MORE countries capable of wiping out the world.

a country like Iran is backwards compared to most of the world, they live their lives 100% on religion.

why on earth would you let a country who lives there everyday lives on a "God" that you cant even see have nukes?

alll turban wearing nazis need to get wiped off this earth asap.

again with this topic

Obviously there is STILL no decent burger joints in Calgary.

How about instead of imagining a world where everyone has them, how about a world where no one does?

Funny, I kept thinking you were describing Bush for some reason but he doesn't wear a turban.... that I know of.

We're 60 years too late for that. Utopia will never happen. The world sucks and we got to make do with it by making sure all them sheeps have enough porn to masturbate for the rest of their lives :2 cents:

sorry...
'new' to world affairs? :winkwink:

it's an issue better researched on your own rather than posted on a message board. You can gain a better understanding and form your own opinions instead of listening to the opinions of others. My opinion makes me some sort of asshole cause I'd make some stupid observation about the fact that ONE, certain...unnamed country has utilized WMD's in Dresdin and in Japan, yet restrict the same ability in others. Payback WILL be a bitch.

and nothing personal at all man, but your sig is making me kinda nausous... it's cool that dudes bang, thats fine....seeing it, on the other hand...

Crikey O'Blimey.

The leaders of Iran declared several years ago that as soon as they had nukes, Israel would cease to exist. So that's one reason.

And if you knew anything about Islam, you'd know that Muslims must be in a constant state of war with non-Muslims until the non-Muslims either pay the jizya tax or become Muslims.

Allowing Muslims to have nukes is like giving a known paedophile your children to babysit for the afternoon - a certain inevitability enters the equation.

LOL :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh LOL

Who are you talking about ?????

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Fits the description of BUSH !!!!

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

OK, seriously???

Because the US don't respect their signature ... Why should others do so???

I agree way to many countries have the bomb but sadly more will get it in the future.
Basicly what is needed is 4 kilos of plutonium and you got the bomb making it effective is another story.
With the collapse of the Sovjet Union both scientist and weapon grade plutonium is available to anyone with enough money.
The only way to stop it are surgical strikes on sites where they research or build the bomb.

The USA walks away from international treaties all the time.

**cough** Kyoto **cough cough**

Kyoto is BULLSHIT. And the Bush administration made the RIGHT call throwing that hunk of shit out.

Yup.. and here's another one. The USA withdrew just yesterday.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The United States has withdrawn from an accord that lets an international court decide disputes over foreign inmates of U.S. prisoners, an agreement used by death penalty opponents in their fight against executions.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/10/vie...nvention.reut/

Along the lines of breaking the Geneva convention....

When the country of Israel acquired them the big picture was different..

Lets face it, if the US wasn't invading countries then Iran and other small countries wouldn't feel the need to have nukes... By posessing nukes a country feels safer. Sure, some leaders are crazy and shouldn't be trusted with Nukes, but its not as if Bush is a model of clear thinking is he.

The more countries that have nuclear weapons the more of a chance that those weapons will be disturbuted.

How hard would it be for some terrorist to hijack some Iranian missle base with inadequate security? Or pay some sympathetic insiders to help?

Maybe its not fair to Iran, but its in the United States best interest to keep them from having nuclear weapons.

If the day comes when the wrong people get a hold of a nuclear weapon.. on that day every thread like this on the internet will have a answer.

When you turn on CNN and see men in contamination suits walking down the streets in New York, placing white flags by radioactive corpses so the incinerators know where to go to burn the millions of bodies.

Entire nations will be destroyed if that day ever comes. And that has to be avoided at all cost.