• 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?

Bardeaux said:
The Iranians need nuclear arms to fight international tyranny tho.
Click to expand...

Big difference between the thread title and the poll question though, having the right to enrich uranium is not the same thing as having the right to nuclear weapons.
 
and bears
250px-Bear_patrol.png


can't fight teddy tyranny without nukes
 
I dunno about Iran, but I definitely think the only country who has actually used nuclear weapons and against civilians nonetheless should not have have access to nuclear weapons.

USA leading the world in terrorism at home and abroad since way fucking back.
 
That's just retarded. Let's just start with Pearl Harbor. Completely unprovoked attack. I think. Japan was just riding Germany's coat tails, wanted to dominate shit. I feel te same that no one should use nukes, but they are a necessity in today's world. Maybe I'm just stupid though.
 
Irrelevant, The US didn't have to drop those nukes , they did it just to make a point. Plenty of other countries have refrained from using nuclear weapons, all this proves is that the US is the country most likely to resort to using a nuclear weapon and hence should not have access to them or at least if they of all countries have access to them then Iran should also.
 
SarcasticOne said:
That's just retarded. Let's just start with Pearl Harbor. Completely unprovoked attack.
Click to expand...

This isn't entirely true. As a growing industrial power with little resources of its own to sustain such growth, Japan relied on trade with other industrialized nations like the US, on it's military industrial complex and on the resources of smaller, nearby nations. Much like the US was exploiting the Caribbean and Latin America, Japan was doing the same to east Asian islands and China.

Anyhoo, the Roosevelt administration wasn't keen on watching Japan become a world power so he annulled the 1911 commercial treaty the two countries shared. Then signed an act prohibiting the export of certain defense materials and scrap steel, then eventually issued a full embargo on Japan. Seeing that the US was a major source of these materials for Japan, they were not pleased.

In attacking Pearl Harbor they were trying to keep the US navy at bay while it pillaged the Pacific as well as display it's feelings towards these economic sanctions. So it wasn't entirely unprovoked.
 
Bardeaux said:
This isn't entirely true. As a growing industrial power with little resources of its own to sustain such growth, Japan relied on trade with other industrialized nations like the US, on it's military industrial complex and on the resources of smaller, nearby nations. Much like the US was exploiting the Caribbean and Latin America, Japan was doing the same to east Asian islands and China.

Anyhoo, the Roosevelt administration wasn't keen on watching Japan become a world power so he annulled the 1911 commercial treaty the two countries shared. Then signed an act prohibiting the export of certain defense materials and scrap steel, then eventually issued a full embargo on Japan. Seeing that the US was a major source of these materials for Japan, they were not pleased.

In attacking Pearl Harbor they were trying to keep the US navy at bay while it pillaged the Pacific as well as display it's feelings towards these economic sanctions. So it wasn't entirely unprovoked.
Click to expand...

That's a little one sided. The treaty you are referring to is the 1911 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation between the United States and Japan. It had a clause allowing either party to terminate it with six months notice.

In 1939, the US invoked that clause. Considering that the Second Sino-Japanese war was ongoing at the time, and the Rape of Nanking happened in '37, grabbing headlines around the world, it's not surprising that the US decided to terminate the treaty.

Nor is it surprising that the US or other European powers decided to stop selling materials useful to waging war. Especially the strengthening of the restrictions after the invasion of Indochina. The Americans, British, and Dutch had colonies in the area. The French colony of Indochina had fallen. It wasn't hard to make the argument that the other nations' colonies were at risk.

There was an east Asian war going on in the late 1930s/early 1940s. It was spreading. The only question is how far would it spread before it was stopped. America, the British, and the Dutch all had reasons to suspect the war would spread to territories under their control. Can you really fault them for refusing to supply their possible future enemy?

Sure, from the Japanese, it seemed like the ABCD (Americans, British, Chinese, Dutch) were restricting them. And there's truth in that statement - the ABCD line was meant to limit Japan's ability to continue to wage the Second Sino-Japanese war and the related conflicts. But it's hardly a provocation, no more than France refusing to sell Germany military tech in 1939 would be considered a provocation.

And from the US side, it probably wasn't considered something that would necessarily lead to war. Japan was having trouble with China, even though China was in the midst of a civil war. Why would it even consider attacking a major power like the US? In hindsight, even some Japanese knew that they couldn't go toe to toe with the US - even though initial gains were predicted, the US had too much capability to wage war.

But to the Japanese, their internal politics strongly favored expanding the war instead of contracting the war. Hence the invasions late in '41. And for about six months, Japan ran wild all over the Pacific. Then Midway happened, and Japan suffered a horrible military defeat. It was a sign of things to come in the next four years.
 
Last edited:
I think that all nuclear weapons should have to be decomissioned, disassembled, destroyed and the radioactive material properly recycled into the energy industry or something productive at the cost of releasing radiation into the environment...

Nukes are for genocide... Not battling militaries... But rather extermination of mass populations of citizenry...

Also I had never realized how effing many nukes have been set off... No wonder everyones getting cancer now...

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima... And a lot more... Im thinking nuclear energy may not be the best way to make electricity.
nuclear power accidents/disasters
 
Last edited:
I am really shocked so many people said yes i was sure the poll would all be no's

Im not even just saying NO cuz im Israeli but just cuz they are crazy and will always threaten evrey country once they have it.
 
^Indeed. Only one nation on earth has ever actually used nuclear weapons in conflict.

totach said:
Im not even just saying NO cuz im Israeli but just cuz they are crazy and will always threaten evrey country once they have it.
Click to expand...

Has Iran ever actually bombed another country aside from Iraq? Israel is a nuclear power, would Israel not pursue a bomb if Iran was the nuclear power with the full support of the US?
 
totach said:
I am really shocked so many people said yes i was sure the poll would all be no's

Im not even just saying NO cuz im Israeli but just cuz they are crazy and will always threaten evrey country once they have it.
Click to expand...

thanks for the comedy. =D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top