The Student Room Group

Why aren't Iran allowed nuclears?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80
Avatar for Andy98
Andy98
20
Original post by MatureStudent36
Weapons or not, we knew he'd been developing them in the past.

Better to get rid of the person who ordered them in the first place.


Not if you don't have a good enough plan for the aftermath. It's arguable that we made it worse there.
Giving muslims nuclear weapons is a really, really stupid idea.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Saddam Hussein had broken the NpT years before and had been stopped through diplomatic pressure. The same with gaddafi.

What better way to stop them continuing to Brel their promises than to get rid of the dictators who had already broken their word before.

WMD was one issue. I don't think that Saddam helped his cause by ordering an assassination attempt in George Bush Snr as well.


How does this explain US jumping on Syria when US thought Assad used them?
Original post by MatureStudent36
Weapons or not, we knew he'd been developing them in the past.

Better to get rid of the person who ordered them in the first place.


He used them against Iran but US removed him in 2003, don't you think US were a bit too late?

Original post by Skip_Snip
Giving muslims nuclear weapons is a really, really stupid idea.


And why is that? (btw Pakistan has them already)
Original post by Andy98
Not if you don't have a good enough plan for the aftermath. It's arguable that we made it worse there.


The end game was shocking.

Had we planned for after the ground war and not sacked the army it would've been completely different.
Original post by Enoxial
He used them against Iran but US removed him in 2003, don't you think US were a bit too late?



And why is that? (btw Pakistan has them already)


And that worries a lot of people. Pakistan is far from stable.
International conflict never ends!!! I think economics can resolve alk this middle east crisis!!

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by MatureStudent36
And that worries a lot of people. Pakistan is far from stable.


Pakistan can be trusted witb them but Iran can't?
Original post by Enoxial
Pakistan can be trusted witb them but Iran can't?


Hell no. Having them and being trusted with them are two completely different arguments.

Pakistan is a volatile unstable country.

However, once again, Pakistan wasn't a signatory of the nuclear non proliferation treaty. (NPT)

Do you understand the NPT? Countries who signed it agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. Libya signed it and tried to develop them. Iraq signed it and tried to develop them. Iran has signed it and appears to be trying to develop them.


Pakistan didn't sign the NPT.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Hell no. Having them and being trusted with them are two completely different arguments.

Pakistan is a volatile unstable country.


US not doing anything to destroy their capacity (like they did with Syria) = Trusting them with nukes?


However, once again, Pakistan wasn't a signatory of the nuclear non proliferation treaty. (NPT)


NPT argument is void. Not signing a paper doesn't mean you can make / use them.


Do you understand the NPT? Countries who signed it agreed not to develop nuclear weapons. Libya signed it and tried to develop them. Iraq signed it and tried to develop them.


Article X allows them to leave NPT.


Iran has signed it and appears to be trying to develop them.


If they wanted to don't you think they already had after ALL these years of harsh sanctions?
Original post by Enoxial
US not doing anything to destroy their capacity (like they did with Syria) = Trusting them with nukes?



NPT argument is void. Not signing a paper doesn't mean you can make / use them.



Article X allows them to leave NPT.



If they wanted to don't you think they already had after ALL these years of harsh sanctions?


Any country can leave the NPT, but they'd become a social pariah.

As Pakistan hadn't signed the NPT, there was very little to do other than apply diplomatic pressure. You can't apply sanctions to a country with no legal basis behind it.


Iran has had some rather ineffective sanctions applied. They're still able to operate US supplied military equipment in the 70s with thirty years of sanctions.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Any country can leave the NPT, but they'd become a social pariah.


How worse can it be having 24,000 of your local currency = USD 1?

As Pakistan hadn't signed the NPT, there was very little to do other than apply diplomatic pressure. You can't apply sanctions to a country with no legal basis behind it.


Tell them to remove nukes or face air strikes, worked with Syria.

Iran has had some rather ineffective sanctions applied. They're still able to operate US supplied military equipment in the 70s with thirty years of sanctions.


Looks like North Korea has it easy

"Iran sanctions are the toughest the world community has imposed on any country, and its economy is suffering a serious blow as a result – an impact that is not being reversed," Mr Lew said at a meeting in Jerusalem of the Joint Economic Development Group (JEDG).


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10910787/Iran-begins-drafting-nuclear-deal.html
Original post by Enoxial
How worse can it be having 24,000 of your local currency = USD 1?



Tell them to remove nukes or face air strikes, worked with Syria.



Looks like North Korea has it easy



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10910787/Iran-begins-drafting-nuclear-deal.html


Syria has no nukes. It has never had nukes.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Syria has no nukes. It has never had nukes.


I meant Syria with Chemical weapons.
Original post by Enoxial
I meant Syria with Chemical weapons.


Syria used it's chemical weapons on a civilian population.
Reply 95
Avatar for Andy98
Andy98
20
Original post by MatureStudent36
The end game was shocking.

Had we planned for after the ground war and not sacked the army it would've been completely different.


Exactly my point

Posted from TSR Mobile
Coz the wannabe world police say so?
Reply 97
Avatar for Andy98
Andy98
20
Original post by Jammy Duel
Coz the wannabe world police say so?


PRSOM

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by MatureStudent36
Syria used it's chemical weapons on a civilian population.


Which was never proved, even the UN (who were investigating) gave no decision, I remember seeing live Ban Ki Moon criticizing Assad but never told who carried it out?

It should also be noted that US erupted fairly early about air strikes even before the UN investigations began...
Original post by Enoxial
Which was never proved, even the UN (who were investigating) gave no decision, I remember seeing live Ban Ki Moon criticizing Assad but never told who carried it out?

It should also be noted that US erupted fairly early about air strikes even before the UN investigations began...


Chemical weapons were used. Of that there is no doubt.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you