It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran Nukes? Exlpain to me why this is a bad idea

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
The past couple of years we have heard a lot of rhetoric here int he US about having to stop rouge states like Iran from getting nuclear weapons. This has been ratcheted up in the media a lot lately. But does not every sovereign state have the right to defend herself with the best military defense they can acquire?

Intrinsically aren't all people created equal and each should have the same rights to defend themselves. I have never understood why it is ok for us (the US) to have nukes and not there states.

If we do not like that countries, with whom we have no diplomatic relations, have dangerous weapons, maybe we should work on our diplomacy.

The only outcome that can come from us working with an international coalition to stop Iran from getting nukes...is an international coalition someday telling us to get rid of ours.

OK..GO. let me have it...explain to me please.




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
In 1970 Iran became signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. At that time they agreed to not develop nuclear weapons. They have not, as yet, withdrawn from the treaty. They are bound by its requirements.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


how does this differ from israel ?



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by zerbot565
 

Israel is not signatory. Nor is Pakistan or India.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Iran is not threatened by anyone therefore there is no point of investing millions in a nuclear program. I'm sure the Iranian people would love to see the money spent on their nuclear program used elsewhere. Why do you need WMD's besides to antagonize and destabilize the region intentionally?



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Seriously?

Nuclear proliferation is a problem for everyone. In an ideal world, there would be no nukes at all. The very last thing we need is nuclear weapons in the hands of some tinpot dictator especially in a region that's a virtual powder keg anyway.

Sooner or later, one of these nut cases is going to get a nuke and use it. It might be Iran, it might be North Korea, it might be who knows? The goal is to impede the spread of those kinds of weapons, not let the fringe have them because "everybody else is doin' it".

If you truly don't see the difference between an Iran or North Korea having that capability, and the USA or France or Great Britain, then there isn't enough room on the forum to get you up to speed.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I will list some reason as to WHY Iran should NOT have nuclear waepons.

1. Crazy man at the helm

2. Denies the holocaust happened ( shows the thought process )

3. HATES the west ( you and me buddy )

4. Wants to wipe a nation off the map ( nukes are a good way to complete that task )

5. President was a member of the radicals that took Americans hostage in '79

Did I mention the regime HATES the west and therefore all of the wests allies ( nations close enough to hit with a nuke from Iran )

That covers SOME of the reasons.

Dorian Soran



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
It's bad because it's bad for Israel.... They won't be able to be the Big Bully on the block..... They would lose the little power they have over the Arab states.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Iran shouldn't have nukes and they signed the NNPT.

There is no evidence they are building weapons as of yet.

I'm guessing the USA has broke the rules of the NNPT at some point (pure speculation), and it seems likely Iran is planning to break the NNPT (though they simply might leave before they do).

I have to wonder if Iran would feel the need for nukes if it wasn't for the threat of Israel.

Nukes are bad, period. When one nation has them, another nation will want them to assure it is on an "even" playing field, and eventually we reach a state of mutually assured destruction.

A NNPT becomes pointless when some nations decide to opt out. It should be mandatory.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by KAKUSA
It's bad because it's bad for Israel.... They won't be able to be the Big Bully on the block..... They would lose the little power they have over the Arab states.


You are joking right? There is NO way on Earth a memeber of ATS can be so out touch to actually believe what was just spewed in that post.

Please for the love of all that IS ATS, deny ignorance and tell us you were joking.

Dorian Soran



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Well M.A.D. works for the US and Russia, Why not Iran/Israel ?


You only get threats when there is an imbalance of power.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Missing Blue Sky
 


It seems a lot of people are for the whole argument of "we're free but no one else is allowed to be".

Personally I don't believe anyone should have nukes, but I don't believe it should be up to a nuclear armed country to try to tell another country that. I don't care who we are, how crazy they may seem to us, or what the deal is. We probably seem crazy to them just as well.

The who problem with telling another country to disarm or refrain from creating nukes, is the fact that we are a damn nuclear armed country, pot calling the kettle black? I'm sorry but it is just stupid and if I were Iran I wouldn't follow either, regardless of what they said.

The point is, the only way towards disarmament is if these world powers get off their high horses and do it themselves. That is the only way that the other countries should have to listen. Regardless of what we may thing, we are not a global police force.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I will answer a question with a question: Do you like to drive or anything made with oil or requires oil? If Iran has nuclear weapons, then you will see a new arms race, where the rest of the middle east, and especially the oil producing states, wanting nuclear weapons. And if one was to go off, then you make an area, and all of the resources of that area pretty much unusuable. Now I do agree that Iran should be allowed to persue a peacefull nuclear program for energy and medical purposes, but not for weapons. And yes the countries with nuclear weapons have a responsiblity to go through and ensure that the other nations do not persue such.
Now as much as the president of Iran spouts, I do not think he would nuke Isreal, not because he would not want to, but because he would have as much to lose as any other country. Kind of like shooting a nuclear weapon at Guidonia-Montecelio Italy, and you end up taking out Rome in the process. So any nuclear weapons shot at Isreal would mean that not only does Judasim lose holy sites, but also Christian and Muslim looses as well. And depending on which way the wind is blowing, they could also end up hurting the very people they are stating they are supporting in the process.
So right now the main reason why Iran is wanting such, and looks like they are trying to get such, is to keep the US at the bargining table. If they loose all contact with the US, they loose billions of dollars in assets that are frozen after the fall of the Shah. And it is in the interest of the US to keep them talking as well as be at the table for all discussions. If anything the US and Iran is talking, and that is a start, may not get anywhere, but it is a start.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Dorian Soran
 





I will list some reason as to WHY Iran should NOT have nuclear waepons.

1. Crazy man at the helm

2. Denies the holocaust happened ( shows the thought process )

3. HATES the west ( you and me buddy )

4. Wants to wipe a nation off the map ( nukes are a good way to complete that task )

5. President was a member of the radicals that took Americans hostage in '79

Did I mention the regime HATES the west and therefore all of the wests allies ( nations close enough to hit with a nuke from Iran )




Please for the love of all that IS ATS, deny ignorance and tell us you were joking.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
To Dorian Soran and Gwydionblack:

Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I think both of your posts work very well together to examine this issue. My philosophical question of shouldn't all states be able to arm themselves any way they see fit? has had me baffled for months. Dorian, I agree with you, that there are many dangers to have such an extremist at the helm. But Gwydionblack I have to agree with you that we are not the global police force and I am very much opposed to our resources being used as such.

thanks for your time.

[edit on 10/5/2009 by Missing Blue Sky]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by lightchild
 


You may mock me all you want but EVERYTHING in my post is true - so NO - there is nothing written to joke about.

Thank you,

Dorian Soran
The Good Doctor



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


aah so if iran hadent signed that piece of paper they´d be in the clear ?



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Dorian Soran
 


Hi Dorian Soran,

I am sorry if I upset you or hurt your feelings, this wasn't my intention.

I wasn't mocking you. I just thought it was ironic that you had a list of what I understand to be mainly untrue, then you told someone to deny ignorance.

So as you have made this accusations please can you back them up?
This will then educate myself and others on this thread and reduce the level of ignorance.

But I will admit you were correct about the hostages; but the USA government did start a coup that overthrew the Iranian government.

Thank in advance,

Simon



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I think the signing of the NNPT is irrelevent.

5 of the worlds nuclear nations have signed it Russian, USA, China, UK, France and all of them are on the United Nations Security Council.

But mine was not a question of policy it was a question of philosophy and sovereignty. I know the IAEA is the governing body in these matters...but does anyone else agree with me that each nation should be able to defend herself any way they see fit...just imagine for a minute if the other nations wanted to demilitarize us in any way. I think the whole idea of the IAEA is hypocritical.

Non Nuclear Proliferation seems a slippery slope into a world court type atmosphere.

[edit on 10/5/2009 by Missing Blue Sky]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
In 1970 Iran became signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. At that time they agreed to not develop nuclear weapons. They have not, as yet, withdrawn from the treaty. They are bound by its requirements.


Yes....but....

The US, Russia, Britain, France and China are all signatories of the NPT.

It didn't stop the US putting warheads into Europe. It didn't stop Russia putting warheads into Europe. It didn't stop the French or the British contributing to Israels weapons programme. It didn't stop the Chinese from aiding Pakistan.

And it most certainly hasn't stopped the stockpiles being renewed and/or replaced, and new systems being developed....

So, so far the "established" nuclear powers have all broken the non-proliferation and disarmament clauses.

It does also guarantee the right to peaceful nuclear technology though.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join