• 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?

I feel it is wrong for some to have and others not. Ideally we'd all see no other choice than to get along. But right now it comes down to association. Radical Islam associated with the middle east, and sentiments expressed, leave little trust for responsible use of technology, such as nuclear weapons, to them. Unfortunately, this route of withholding might lead to an accident, such as an extremist group gaining access to nuclear . And the rift our politicians and theirs and whatnot create/perpetuate is at least in part responsible.
 
Last edited:
If everyone had nukes, the chance of nuclear war or terrorism would skyrocket - it would only be a matter of time before someone chose to use nukes either as a last ditch effort to defend themselves from foreign invaders or MUCH less likely as an attack for something other than self defense in a dire situation.

Also, countries fail all the time. A failed state with nuclear weapons would be incredibly dangerous. Nukes could end up on the black market or in the hands of terrorists.
What would happen if Islamic militants seize power in Pakistan? They might actually use them in a terrorist attack/act of war.

I do not think the current Iranian government would use the nukes unless they were being invaded even as extreme as their rhetoric has been. But what happens when the government inevitably changes or is overthrown? And can we ever be certain they won't use them or provide nukes/nuclear material to terrorists?

The biggest threat is probably nukes falling into the wrong hands when there is a power vacuum in a failed state. The nukes could at least temporarily be unprotected from extremists or anyone who wants to sell one on the black market. A nuke would bring lots of money.
 
L2R said:
that never happened

we've been over this several times here.
Click to expand...

This is true actually. The whole "we want to wipe Israel off the map" thing was a quote taken out of context and made much more of than it actually was. However, just because that is true doesnt mean that Iran doesnt resent Israel and the US to an extremely large degree.

Furthermore, those of you that think it would be a good thing for Iran to have nukes are fucking retarded. Unless you're a privileged Iranian (which I doubt because they have strict internet censorship in Iran) there is no good reason to want that regime to have a nuke. They support radical Islamists, and even if they never personally nuked a western nation, they probably wouldn't think twice about giving terrorists a nuke. And even if they didnt use them, just having them would allow Ahmadinejad to get all uppity and destabilize the region, which would have all kinds of negative impacts on people in the US.
 
Does anyone here remember the fact that Ahmadinejad has a Jewish past/roots, despite Israel's claim he said he wanted to wipe them off the map (which he didn't, mistranslation).

ahmadinejad_afp416.jpg
 
Wyld 4 X said:
I do not believe they have a reason to worry about invasion unless they pull off some massively stupid act of war. And in such a case, it will not just be the US they have to worry about. The powers of government in Iran are in the minority, the people there will find a way to change it when they are ready.
Click to expand...

Well, the situation could escalate uncontrollably.
 
Care said:
This is true actually. The whole "we want to wipe Israel off the map" thing was a quote taken out of context and made much more of than it actually was. However, just because that is true doesnt mean that Iran doesnt resent Israel and the US to an extremely large degree.
Click to expand...

Cyberattacks and targeted assassinations do cause some justified resentment.
 
Escher's Waterfall said:
Cyberattacks and targeted assassinations do cause some justified resentment.
Click to expand...

This gets constantly overlooked. For some reason Israel is exempt from criticism when it comes to carrying out assassinations and cyberattacks against other nations. When you examine the overall picture, the nation displaying the most aggressive behaviour is clearly Israel and not Iran. The amount of media spin and hyperbole on Iran is no different to what we saw in the build up to the Iraq war. The media is behaving in a disgraceful manner.
 
Allowed by who, and and by what means will this ultra authority prevent Iran from building a bomb? The US and Israel hold no legal authority over Iran and the sanctions placed on them harm its citizens more than the regime. Then we wonder why there's such resentment :?

What we have are foreign influences infringing on a soveriegn nation's self determination. Texas was up in arms when the UN wanted to monitor elections ffs, imagine if an international body wanted to forcefully prevent the US from doing anything and the cries of oppression that would be flooding the political landscape.

From the perspective of the US, Israel and other westernized nations, it obviously wouldn't be a good thing for the Iranian regime to get ahold of a weapon. However, from the perspective of Iran they are incredibley out armed by Israel and the US. To them, this is an equalizer. They've been watching their neighbors on both sides of their borders be invaded and dismantled by the US for the past decade. What would you do? Saddam complied with regulations and weapons inspections for years and still faced sanctions and an eventual invasion. Does anyone really expect Iran to follow the same route?

Imo, a nuclear Iran wouldn't be nearly as dangerous as the already nuclear Pakistan. The ISI is one of the shadiest intelligence agencies in the middle east, if you're worried about dirty bombs showing up in the wrong hands lets start looking at unstable countries that already possess nuclear weapons.
 
if you're worried about dirty bombs showing up in the wrong hands lets start looking at unstable countries that already possess nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

This is veering quite a bit off topic, but no one should be afraid of "dirty bombs". It turns out that spreading radioactive material over a wide area is a very poor way to irradiate people. Dirty bombs do pose a radiation-poisoning risk to people who decide to hang out for more than a day or so directly at the site of explosion. So dirty bombs tend to target Darwin Award material disproportionately. :P

ebola
 
oh i thought a dirty bomb was one which dispurses pornography and profane language. o_0
 
Erm, already did. But, to give you another hint: as long as the person/group/nation you are attempting to intimidate doesn't know you are out of ammo, the facade can be an effective deterrent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top