Why Iran shouldn't have nuclear bombs?

US, UK, Russia, China, and France have such weapons, of course. But why Iran or other countries can't or shouldn't have them? Why are the mass media against them? That's quite fair?

Reply 1

arminb

3

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.

Reply 2

placenta medicae talpae

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

Reply 3

Aj12

18

Original post by skunkboy

US, UK, Russia, China, and France have such weapons, of course. But why Iran or other countries can't or shouldn't have them? Why are the mass media against them? That's quite fair?

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

Reply 4

CEKTOP

13

Original post by arminb

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.

As soon as Iran develops a nuclear weapon it will get shoved up the "supreme" leader's narrow ass by Israel and its Western friends.

Reply 5

skunkboy

OP

11

Original post by Aj12

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...

Reply 6

Aj12

18

Original post by skunkboy

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...

Then the Iranians should leave the treaty but as they are apart of it they have a legal obligation to not pursue nuclear weapons. There are plenty of other reasons but the most clear cut one is that they are part of a legal framework that forbids nuclear weapons.

Reply 7

CEKTOP

13

Original post by skunkboy

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...

India is one of the most corrupt and backwards "democracies" in the world. I don't think that nukes are safe in its hands.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 8

techno-thriller

14

I am for Iran having nukes

Reply 9

Bill_Gates

21

Original post by CEKTOP

India is one of the most corrupt and backwards "democracies" in the world. I don't think that nukes are safe in its hands.

Posted from TSR Mobile

LOL the largest democracy in the world and closest alley to the US alongside having POVERTY stricken Pakistan next door?

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

some could say its got something to do with their beliefs :colone:

Reply 10

Observatory

20

Why shouldn't Angry Bill down the pub have a sawn-off shotgun? Ideally China and Russia wouldn't have them either, to say nothing of Pakistan and North Korea.

Reply 11

username358506

20

Original post by Bill_Gates

LOL the largest democracy in the world and closest alley to the US alongside having POVERTY stricken Pakistan next door?

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

some could say its got something to do with their beliefs :colone:

India isn't really the 'closest ally to the US' in the region, in fact it isn't really an ally at all. Dehli maintains a non-aligned position in global politics, having turned down numerous US attempts of forging an alliance - but, due to China's not-so-peaceful rise, it seems almost inevitable that closer cooperation will happen. This is reinforced by the fact it is mutually beneficial for both countries to align themselves together: India is surrounded by enemies; the US must contain China.

Reply 12

wanabee

Original post by skunkboy

US, UK, Russia, China, and France have such weapons, of course. But why Iran or other countries can't or shouldn't have them? Why are the mass media against them? That's quite fair?

You're right it's not fair, and some reasonable and decent folks are aiming for zero nukes on earth so letting another country get them means trouble. Especially when said country has so many problems. that's all there is to it.

Reply 13

Bill_Gates

21

Original post by Stalin

India isn't really the 'closest ally to the US' in the region, in fact it isn't really an ally at all. Dehli maintains a non-aligned position in global politics, having turned down numerous US attempts of forging an alliance - but, due to China's not-so-peaceful rise, it seems almost inevitable that closer cooperation will happen. This is reinforced by the fact it is mutually beneficial for both countries to align themselves together: India is surrounded by enemies; the US must contain China.

LOL you know nothing. China is hardly an enemy Indias 2nd largest partner in trade. Pakistan is hardly an enemy worthy, India took them in 2 weeks and could cut that to a few days. But why would we want to obtain poverty? we already have 10% of muslims in India living in absolute poverty. No thanks

India is on the rise, the world knows it.

Reply 14

Bill_Gates

21

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

Reply 15

username1082842

8

Why can't we send all our nuclear bombs off with that Indian rocket to Mars and destroy them all on Mars?

Reply 16

Dhaal_Chawal

11

Original post by Bill_Gates

LOL the largest democracy in the world and closest alley to the US alongside having POVERTY stricken Pakistan next door?

Are you trying to suggest India isn't poverty stricken?

In absolute terms, 41.6 per cent of India's 1.1 billion people earned less than 78 pence per day compared with 22.6 per cent of Pakistan's 173 million.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/8867353/Indian-poverty-levels-higher-than-Pakistans-says-UN-report.html

Reply 17

Donald Duck

15

It's not about fairness, it's about being practical.

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

Given we really want to avoid those things, we should prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Reply 18

College_Dropout

21

Original post by CEKTOP

India is one of the most corrupt and backwards "democracies" in the world. I don't think that nukes are safe in its hands.

Posted from TSR Mobile

But nuclear weapons with the USA are safe? The country which bombs any country they wish but yet NW with India, the country which has never started a so much as a War it is un safe?