• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Do you think Iran should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon?

A dirty bomb might not be a very good way to kill, but it would definitely terrorize and the contamination could be very expensive and hazardous to clean up.

And just to make it clear, I think Israel has committed plenty of atrocities and created much of the hate and resentment against them with there abuse of the Palestinian people, who have been denied basic human rights. The Israeli's must respond to rocket attacks, but they have killed thousands of Palestinians over the years compared to maybe a few hundred Israelis. I don't know the actual numbers, but they have been responsible for many deaths, most of whom were probably innocent of terrorism - many children have died. The Israeli government has prevented life saving medicine from getting into Gaza. I have read heartbreaking stories of cancer patients who could not get treatment as a result, something that really resonates with me since my mom has been fighting stage 4 breast cancer for six years. I in no way support the treatment of the Palestinians who have been abandoned both by Israel and neighboring Muslim countries who will not accept refugees or allow them to assimilate into their societies. They are all around screwed and have good reason for anger and resentment.

I still think nukes for Iran is dangerous - more due to the threat of them ending up in the hands of terrorists or truly insane extremists - who knows what Iran will be like a decade or two from now?
Pakistan is at least as concerning and more so in my opinion. They have quite a few nukes and they could potentially be overrun or overthrown by extremist elements. There is a large faction of Islamic Jihadists in Pakistan (yes, I know Jihad is not all about holy war and killing, it can have a more positive meaning - but the extremists elements want to inflict harm on anyone who opposes them, even in Pakistan itself).

I can not support proliferation of nuclear weapons. If enough countries have them, someone will someday use them or they will fall into the wrong hands during periods of political turmoil or collapse.
I'd full heartedly support nukes for all nations if I thought it would bring an end to war, but it is not realistic to expect that - just my opinion, not necessarily a valid one.
 
It's not whether they 'should be allowed' to have a bomb. They're signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, a treaty they have freely entered into. If they want a bomb they have to withdraw from the NPT. Until then the only thing they are allowed to develop under international law are technologies with peaceful applications. If they go on to develop a bomb regardless of their treaty obligations they can only expect that to have consequences for them. Simple.
 
the poll options are set too narrow - I think it should include simple yes or no.

I think they should be allowed to, simply because the western coalition do, and we should not dictate what others shouldn't do, if we have what they want - that's fucking hypocritical and authoritarian and that attitude is the reason every terrorist motherfucker wants to bomb us (US/UK) in the first place.

The real question should be - Should ANYONE be allowed to have nuclear weapons - the answer should be a unanimous NO.

These things hold too much power, that kinda power corrupts, and corrupt wielding nuclear weapons endangers every single man woman and child under their jurisdiction.

The USA and the UK should dismantle and recycle all their nuclear weapons, for everyone in the world to follow suit - be a good example for once.
 
the poll options are set too narrow - I think it should include simple yes or no.

I think they should be allowed to, simply because the western coalition do, and we should not dictate what others shouldn't do, if we have what they want - that's fucking hypocritical and authoritarian and that attitude is the reason every terrorist motherfucker wants to bomb us (US/UK) in the first place.

The real question should be - Should ANYONE be allowed to have nuclear weapons - the answer should be a unanimous NO.

These things hold too much power, that kinda power corrupts, and corrupt wielding nuclear weapons endangers every single man woman and child under their jurisdiction.

The USA and the UK should dismantle and recycle all their nuclear weapons, for everyone in the world to follow suit - be a good example for once.

but if someone were to somehow get nuclear weapons without anyone knowing after we dismantle our nuclear weapons then we'd be fucked.
 
assuming there is anyone in a position to use nukes who is itching for a chance to.


friggin big and somehow unquestionably common assumption
 
The USA and the UK should dismantle and recycle all their nuclear weapons, for everyone in the world to follow suit - be a good example for once.


Right. Then we watch Putin jizz himself and reinstate the USSR with impunity. Not to mention all his diplomatic trips on horseback and shirtless.
 
but if someone were to somehow get nuclear weapons without anyone knowing after we dismantle our nuclear weapons then we'd be fucked.

Rational choice theory tells us the world will never be free of nukes until all the worlds people are united under a common government and ideology. Until then it will always be necessary to have nukes, because if you dismantle all your nukes and the other guy doesnt, you will be vulnerable.

The possibility of nuclear war is a scary thought, but in reality the chance of it happening is low and the world is relatively peaceful (as far as total war between powerful states).
 
Is the realpolitikal theory of nations as atomized, rational, self-interested agents true? What about the institutional framework that structures the environment in which alliances are drawn? What about the class-determinants of international politics? What about local institutional contexts in which militaries are embedded?

ebola
 
but if someone were to somehow get nuclear weapons without anyone knowing after we dismantle our nuclear weapons then we'd be fucked.

Well maybe if they were gonna use it on the USA your government deserves whatever it gets. Nah I don't fully mean that - FULLY. You have brought it on yourselves as the big dog interfering assholes of the world. But I don't condone millions of innocent, albeit ignorant, people being nuked.

Wyld 4x mentioning the USSR - who the fuck cares? Let him do it - why shouldn't he? (nice Putin fantasy btw - I bet that one gets you jizzing yourself nicely, from the sound of it ;) ).

The backing down by the USA/UK/UN needs to be done slowly, with much negotiating with Russia, Iran, China, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea - weapon by weapon, agreement to stop messing in other peoples business, unless genocide is clearly happening.

Honestly they need to stop raping other people's countries - they're fucking hated, and again, to a small small extent they deserve what they get.
 
Right. Then we watch Putin jizz himself and reinstate the USSR with impunity. Not to mention all his diplomatic trips on horseback and shirtless.

That's awesome.

You have brought it on yourselves as the big dog interfering assholes of the world. But I don't condone millions of innocent, albeit ignorant, people being nuked.

Wyld 4x mentioning the USSR - who the fuck cares? Let him do it - why shouldn't he? Or are you brainwashed too?

Have you completely lost your mind? Do you know anything about your country's history? Hit the books, laddie. You might find it was decent of us to come over and help fight that guy, damn, what was his name................oh yeah, HITLER. You know, before he turned that small funky island of yours into the rubble.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wyld 4x mentioning the USSR - who the fuck cares? Let him do it - why shouldn't he? (nice Putin fantasy btw - I bet that one gets you jizzing yourself nicely, from the sound of it ;) ).

The backing down by the USA/UK/UN needs to be done slowly, with much negotiating with Russia, Iran, China, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea - weapon by weapon, agreement to stop messing in other peoples business, unless genocide is clearly happening.

You are delusional if you think that the US "backing down" as you put it would be followed 1 for 1 by Russia. Yes, let's take all the missiles out of Europe and then tell Russia, "its your turn, buddy! We did it now and we trust you will follow suit because you've proven to be such a global team player." Right. The EU and the people living there would riot in the streets at that notion.

Honestly they need to stop raping other people's countries - they're fucking hated, and again, to a small small extent they deserve what they get.

I wonder how you'd feel in the 19th century when GB was the big global power. "It's a different world now" you'll say, right? You are right, its very different. The US isnt conquering nations all over the globe to extend it's influence and power. Now its geo-economical & political influence which is not pretty but important. I would love for us to go isolationist for about 10 years and watch the global catastrophe that ensues. You are not wrong about the interfering with other countries but what is your alternative to it?
 
Is the realpolitikal theory of nations as atomized, rational, self-interested agents true? What about the institutional framework that structures the environment in which alliances are drawn? What about the class-determinants of international politics? What about local institutional contexts in which militaries are embedded?

ebola

all you need to know about bad guy logic is:
step 1- nuke somebody
step 2- ???
step 3- profit
 
Have you completely lost your mind? Do you know anything about your country's history? Hit the books, laddie. You might find it was decent of us to come over and help fight that guy, damn, what was his name................oh yeah, HITLER. You know, before he turned that small funky island of yours into the rubble.
No no I don't please enlighten me.

NO WAIT - SHut the FUCK UP! - Of course I know the history - the propagated one and the real one - or as close to it as I feel like getting at the mo.

YOu honestly don't know anything if you think Hitler would've ever fucked the UK up - and dthe USA "ssaved" us - boyo you make me laugh. time for bed.

Alternatives? Isolationist sounds about right - America needs to fuck off an mind its own fucking broke indebted business and deal with the mess it's made, without involving anyone else.

To end - really? 19th century UK? I would've been an anarchist bomber back then - victoriana is some fucked up shit.
 
No no I don't please enlighten me.

NO WAIT - SHut the FUCK UP! - Of course I know the history - the propagated one and the real one - or as close to it as I feel like getting at the mo.

YOu honestly don't know anything if you think Hitler would've ever fucked the UK up - and dthe USA "ssaved" us - boyo you make me laugh. time for bed.

Alternatives? Isolationist sounds about right - America needs to fuck off an mind its own fucking broke indebted business and deal with the mess it's made, without involving anyone else.

To end - really? 19th century UK? I would've been an anarchist bomber back then - victoriana is some fucked up shit.

An English person telling another country to mind their own business?

Thats some funny shit.
 
Utterly excited about MDMA said:
I would love for us to go isolationist for about 10 years and watch the global catastrophe that ensues.

I doubt this strongly. Cooperative economic integration precludes war for the vast majority of world players. And then for more minor players, eg those in sub-Saharan Africa, US intervention occurs inconsistently and guided by extra-humanitarian concerns; even with the US as 'policeman', we let a lot of shit go down if intervention doesn't benefit us.

me said:
[stuff I said to Care]

But then again, the fact that there have been no nuclear attacks since our bombing of Japan provides evidence for the realpolitikal logic. But the corollary is that if multiple countries have at least 1 bomb already, it doesn't really matter if more develop nuclear arms, as all are restrained by fear of mutual annihilation; there would need be a nuclearly armed irrational actor to give reason for concern.

ebola
 
But then again, the fact that there have been no nuclear attacks since our bombing of Japan provides evidence for the realpolitikal logic. But the corollary is that if multiple countries have at least 1 bomb already, it doesn't really matter if more develop nuclear arms, as all are restrained by fear of mutual annihilation; there would need be a nuclearly armed irrational actor to give reason for concern.

ebola

Exactly, the fear of Iran and especially NK with nukes is that

a) they will use them to improve their position at the bargaining table if they prove that they have the capability to deliver nukes to their targets.

b) They cannot be backed into a corner politically or militarily any more because their dictatorial leaders might get desperate enough to use them either as retaliation against another nation, or locally on the invading force.

You dont have to be irrational to use a nuclear weapon on your enemy if youre a totalitarian dictator and your nation is on the brink of collapse or conquest.
 
YOu honestly don't know anything if you think Hitler would've ever fucked the UK up - and dthe USA "ssaved" us - boyo you make me laugh. time for bed.

Right, everything was just dandy when the bombs were falling in London. Sorry pal, you were kaput if we didn't save the day. Whatever helps you sleep at night though.

Anyway I agree that worldwide disarmament is quite a delusional theory. Kind of like when England thought the Americans would put up with taxation without representation.
 
There hasn't been a nuclear conflict between nations since WW2; the way I see it, we can keep it that way if no more nations develop nukes, and the ones who already have them just keep sitting on them and never use them.

... why the fuck do we even have those things I could cry
 
Top