Just let Iran and North korea acquire nuclear weapons .
"The only thing that stops a bad country with nuclear weapons , is a good country with nuclear weapons" -- the NRA
There is such a thing called Mutual Assured Destruction, the wonderful thing that has prevented nuclear from ever being used since WWII. No one would use it because they would sign their death warrant by doing so. US, UK and France has nuclears and that is more than enough to achieve the mutual assured destruction effect.
So lets not sweat over iran's nuclear program, they can bloody have it if they can pay the millions in maintenance fee. It would be more a waste of money than any significant threat towards anyone.
If you are still not convinced, Remember "The only thing that stops a bad country with nuclear weapons , is a good country with nuclear weapons" , keep telling yourself that.
There is such a thing called Mutual Assured Destruction, the wonderful thing that has prevented nuclear from ever being used since WWII. No one would use it because they would sign their death warrant by doing so. US, UK and France has nuclears and that is more than enough to achieve the mutual assured destruction effect.
So lets not sweat over iran's nuclear program, they can bloody have it if they can pay the millions in maintenance fee. It would be more a waste of money than any significant threat towards anyone.
If you are still not convinced, Remember "The only thing that stops a bad country with nuclear weapons , is a good country with nuclear weapons" , keep telling yourself that.
It's not inconceivable that Iran could be trusted with nuclear weapons. The country may have its own agenda which is hostile to the West, but it does at least make an effort to work peacefully with other countries and to abide by international law (or at least, to not breach international law any more than the US and Israel do). As for its Islamist authoritarianism, it's hardly unique in that respect when you look at other countries in the region, and arguably a lot better than Saudi Arabia.
North Korea, though, is a completely different question. It already has nuclear warheads, it's just lacking the missiles needed to send them any further than South Korea. In any case we know so little about it that we can't trust it in anything. For all we know, Kim Jong-un might be mad enough to press the red button anyway in a fit of pique, regardless of the inevitable consequences.
North Korea, though, is a completely different question. It already has nuclear warheads, it's just lacking the missiles needed to send them any further than South Korea. In any case we know so little about it that we can't trust it in anything. For all we know, Kim Jong-un might be mad enough to press the red button anyway in a fit of pique, regardless of the inevitable consequences.
Original post by HucktheForde
"The only thing that stops a bad country with nuclear weapons , is a good country with nuclear weapons" -- the NRA
There is such a thing called Mutual Assured Destruction, the wonderful thing that has prevented nuclear from ever being used since WWII. No one would use it because they would sign their death warrant by doing so. US, UK and France has nuclears and that is more than enough to achieve the mutual assured destruction effect.
So lets not sweat over iran's nuclear program, they can bloody have it if they can pay the millions in maintenance fee. It would be more a waste of money than any significant threat towards anyone.
If you are still not convinced, Remember "The only thing that stops a bad country with nuclear weapons , is a good country with nuclear weapons" , keep telling yourself that.
There is such a thing called Mutual Assured Destruction, the wonderful thing that has prevented nuclear from ever being used since WWII. No one would use it because they would sign their death warrant by doing so. US, UK and France has nuclears and that is more than enough to achieve the mutual assured destruction effect.
So lets not sweat over iran's nuclear program, they can bloody have it if they can pay the millions in maintenance fee. It would be more a waste of money than any significant threat towards anyone.
If you are still not convinced, Remember "The only thing that stops a bad country with nuclear weapons , is a good country with nuclear weapons" , keep telling yourself that.
Mad relies on two things sane players and guarantees of destruction. In the middle east with its blend of religious fanaticism and close geography neither is in place. Therefore mad would not apply and the threat of a nuclear exchange is far too high.
Posted from TSR Mobile
The problem with the proliferation of nuclear weapons is less about the risk that states will use them and more about the fact that the more states that have them especially in regions where terrorists are active, the more it becomes easier for terrorist groups to acquire material that they can use in suitcase bombs etc which is the most likely way there will be a nuclear attack in the West.
Iran is not really likely to launch a nuclear attack. It doesn't have a track record of aggression. Yes it has destabilised Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting pro-Iranian Shia groups and prolonged/escalated these conflicts and is now supporting Assad but it's not an expansionist country with militaristic ideology. It would have been a bigger problem had Saddam had nuclear weapons in Iraq. Also there are slow moves towards Iran becoming more moderate.
Personally my biggest concern regarding nukes is about Pakistan. Pakistan is an unstable country and could easily fall in to the hands of a hardline government that wants to go to war with India. That's a bigger threat than Iran for me and its one that is too late to be put back in the box.
North Korea, I think is all talk. If there was a chance NK was going to start destabilising the region throwing nukes around that would be a problem for China and Russia, never mind us, so NK is unlikely to start a nuclear war.
Iran is not really likely to launch a nuclear attack. It doesn't have a track record of aggression. Yes it has destabilised Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting pro-Iranian Shia groups and prolonged/escalated these conflicts and is now supporting Assad but it's not an expansionist country with militaristic ideology. It would have been a bigger problem had Saddam had nuclear weapons in Iraq. Also there are slow moves towards Iran becoming more moderate.
Personally my biggest concern regarding nukes is about Pakistan. Pakistan is an unstable country and could easily fall in to the hands of a hardline government that wants to go to war with India. That's a bigger threat than Iran for me and its one that is too late to be put back in the box.
North Korea, I think is all talk. If there was a chance NK was going to start destabilising the region throwing nukes around that would be a problem for China and Russia, never mind us, so NK is unlikely to start a nuclear war.
(edited 8 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- a level history - edexcel cold war coursework
- Name a country or city with the last letter of the previous one
- Should I include maps
- Defence Engineering grad scheme
- A nuclear attack may have started now.
- Nuclear Engineering - Is it worth doing a degree apprenticeship?
- A level physics nuclear question (3)
- Israel strikes Isfahan and other sites
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- USA bombing Syria
- Mark IGCSE History Essay
- Geography 12marker edexcel plzzz someone mark it and give advice
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
- Where to study physics that isn't in a big city and a whole bunch of other questions!
- Kpop Dance Crew in London???
- looking for student accommodation in north london
- Anyone speak pushto (pashto) here?
- Carrer prospects in taking Chem?
- Immigration Enforcement
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
