Why Iran shouldn't have nuclear bombs?

we already got enough troubles with those countries having nukes,firstly. In case Iran had atomic booms, there would be no hope for west to overthrow the regime.

I find myself in general agreement with this - I regard their governmental system and political outcomes as far from trustworthy.

Unfortunately, the same could also be said for Russia, only even more so. I shudder sometimes to think that a bullying, paranoid mafia-style government run by someone with a KGB mindset is still in control of such power.

Why are drones and napalm special? They surely cannot obliterate the Earth in seconds.

Ideally either everyone or no-one should.
With a strong preference for no-one.

Iran has signed the NPT stating they will not pursue nuclear weapons. Simple really.

Haha.... really? That means Iran can't leave the treaty? That treaty is really fair? No flaws? Why does India argue that NPT creates a club of 'nuclear haves ' and a larger group of 'nuclear have-nots ' by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such distinction is valid? No hidden agenda behind the treaty? Hahahaha...

Iran does not deserve a nuke it is too volatile towards the west and human values in general

India is on the rise, the world knows it.

Iran is sucking Indias penis in order for it to buy oil

The more countries have nukes, the larger the chance of nuclear war, or one falling into the hands of a terrorist organisation.

Iran should not be in the possession of strategic advanced weapons because it is politically unstable and the political system there, instead of being a civilised representative democracy or even a monarchy, is a hard-line theocracy. This state of affairs is, quite frankly, insane; although the current President (that would be Rouhani) shows some signs of sanity, he does not hold full control of the executive, and, although I mistrust him to a lesser degree than Ahmadinejad, he is still subject to the jurisdiction of the Assembly of Experts (who are all, to use the technical term, off their rockers). Because of the political upheaval, Rouhani could find himself on his arse the next day and a maniac like Ahmadinejad could take his place. This is why the current Constitution of Iran essentially throws the nuclear option out the window.

If Iran was still a kingdom with the Shah as king, I'd be more open to the nuclear option; if it were a republic on the Westminster system, that would be fine as well.

it could be for the worse but at least the situation currently is "tolerable" although not ideal and that's enough for me.

It had the bomb since 45 and only used it twice. That's impressive given the amount of conflicts US has been involved in over the years.

You're talking about a country that nearly went to war with Russia. I doubt they'd be scared of Iran..

If either side were to attack the other 'because they can', I'm pretty confident it would be Iran attacking America..

Really? US/Israel bullying everyone is tolerable? US spying is tolerable? Look at how US spied on the EU and they couldn't do anything.

If we lack the courage to defy tyrants, we don't deserve our freedom

Well seeing as though no country with Nuclear Bombs wants to go for the 'no one' option so Iran should have it.



Syria wasn't a signatory to the Chemical Weapons treaty but when they were alleged that they used it, the US still made a big deal out of it.



In law, right can easily be proven wrong and vice versa.
Like even if Iran is a part of treaty, it can still leave it by saying 'The US put duress on us to sign the treaty' and poof.



And having imposed Heavy Sanctions which is causing rising inflations every year leaving more and more people poor is upholding the human values?



The state can't even feed the school children!
And to make matters worse they just increased their interest rates.



Just like David Cameron was doing to John Kerry regarding Military action in Syria?



If the US can trust Pakistan not to hand over it to terrorists then with Iran it has nothing to worry about.




So what your saying is, it would be ok if Iran was a puppet to the US but currently unsafe because Iran even with a badly damaged economy has the guts to stand up to US?



Really? US/Israel bullying everyone is tolerable? US spying is tolerable? Look at how US spied on the EU and they couldn't do anything.



That stayed 2 because it had its puppets to carry out its dirty work.

Syria had facilities since 1970's but was only alleged to have used it now.



Its a fact, US is scared of Iran.



Because America has closer allies to do the job.

Truth hurts. I think you got lost in the Stalin username hardly know anything.

As I said there are plenty of other reasons Iran should not have nuclear weapons. But currently the main one is it's legal obligations. If it was not signed to the NPT the case against an Iranian bomb could still be made

Yeah, tolerable. That's what we're doing right - tolerating it. It's nowhere near ideal but I perhaps I lack the courage to see change.

and I'd say I lack the courage.

The world is unstable enough as it is, why add more to this?

Most blame must be put on US for this.
So your saying Iran shouldn't have it because US has made the world unstable enough?

The world would be a much better place with US's stupid policies out of the situation.

If the US can trust Pakistan not to hand over it to terrorists then with Iran it has nothing to worry about.

Your assumption of most includes me, which is completely wrong. I don't blame the US at all, I blame Europe. None of this would have started without imperialism. The US filled the power vacuum that followed WWII. Yes, they have policies which are very, VERY wrong, but they have also had policies which did a lot of good. What has Europe had? Two World Wars, started three historical waves of terrorism and an elitist attitude to everyone else. Despite being a European, I do not like Europe's effects on the world.

How about the industrial revolutions, a humongous amount of innovations/inventions or the end of slavery (yes we participated. But we didn't invent it, had it banned at home before that was commonplace in the world and our civilisation has brought an end to it.)

Both excellent parts of British history. I don't see what the industrial revolution has to do with nukes, would you mind elaborating? As regards slavery, yes it was wonderful Britain made great moves to abolish what they started (through imperialism, I might add) and how wonderful of the rest of Europe to eventually succumb after sending decades rallying against it! European powers have always been and always will be hypocrites. Their bad outweighs their good imo as, whilst great things are happening now and have done in the past, it can never outweigh the oppression, disregard and gross mistreatment of millions of people in the pursuit of power.

Yes, the US has and continues to do the same BUT it has done good in it's history, particularly in areas of Latin America.

No one country is to blame for the way the world is. Every government, every individual has a responsibility towards our world, even down to the poorest citizen.

No, Iran should not have nukes, no country should. Equality is needed and we can never get equal respect when some countries hold more power than others.

I'm certain slavery was almost everywhere in the world before imperialism. the western nations tended to trade slaves against other things in Africa, and then took them to America. But they had been slaves in Africa before, and there had been slavery in America too. It wasn't their invention. They just continued it in foreign countries, though they had already stopped it at home.

Some countries will always be more powerfull than others. Even without armies, if my economy is much stronger than yours, I'll still be more powerfull.

I fully support getting rid of nukes everywhere, but I don't believe that to be a realistic goal. Therefore I see preventing new countries from obtaining them as a better situation.

It could be said, 'US pressed duress against Iran to sign it' thus leaving the treaty as void ab initio.