Turn on thread page Beta

Should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...r_wh/us_iran_4

    "We cannot allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon. The international community has got to find a way to come together and to make certain that that does not happen." Rice

    Rice should be fired... she is a liability and a liar... not to mention a *****...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Should anyone be allowed?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Looks like I was right in thinking that Iran will be next to be invaded.

    To answer the question - no nation should be allowed nuclear weapons however we have them now so things are a little more complicated (yes I know that doesn't actualy answer anything :rolleyes: ).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    No they should not, but neither should we develop or produce any more in addition to those we have already.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    If I had my way, nobody would be allowed to make nuclear weapons, ever. So no, Iran shouldn't be allowed to, but countries like the USA should start cutting down on their stocks as well. Setting a good example and all that...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frances)
    If I had my way, nobody would be allowed to make nuclear weapons, ever. So no, Iran shouldn't be allowed to, but countries like the USA should start cutting down on their stocks as well. Setting a good example and all that...
    Yup
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frances)
    If I had my way, nobody would be allowed to make nuclear weapons, ever. So no, Iran shouldn't be allowed to, but countries like the USA should start cutting down on their stocks as well. Setting a good example and all that...
    Interestingly i recall an offer being made to the US by the Soviets at the time communism was falling apart that both of them get rid of all their nuclear weapons, the US said no.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Interestingly i recall an offer being made to the US by the Soviets at the time communism was falling apart that both of them get rid of all their nuclear weapons, the US said no.
    Of course, no nuclear power will ever want to let go of their warheads, even if everyone else disarms. They want to keep their options open.

    Two years before the US invades a country is makes little grunts about it. Just before and immediately after the Second Iraq War the USA (under Jewish control) made noises about both Syria and Iran. It's now only the latter that it's still muttering about so we can expect a war there in late 2005 or 2006 (assuming Bush wins the next election).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Interestingly i recall an offer being made to the US by the Soviets at the time communism was falling apart that both of them get rid of all their nuclear weapons, the US said no.
    So the question is - should all nations who have nuclear weapons disarm their warheads?

    Would this create a safer world? I believe the world is unsafe whilst any country has the capability to launch a nuclear strike and I do not believe that the US is any less danger to world peace than any other nation.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    So the question is - should all nations who have nuclear weapons disarm their warheads?

    Would this create a safer world? I believe the world is unsafe whilst any country has the capability to launch a nuclear strike and I do not believe that the US is any less danger to world peace than any other nation.
    No 'sane' country would use Nuclear weapons as they would instantly become a pariah nation at best (assuming the recipient had no nuclear technology of their own) or be wiped out themselves should the target also have a nuclear arsenal. Its the places with real nutjobs in charge like North Korea youve got to look out for.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Haven't Iran got better things to do than invest in nuclear weapons? They're not exactly rich are they?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Biggles)
    Two years before the US invades a country is makes little grunts about it. Just before and immediately after the Second Iraq War the USA (under Jewish control) made noises about both Syria and Iran. It's now only the latter that it's still muttering about so we can expect a war there in late 2005 or 2006 (assuming Bush wins the next election).
    I don't think any new US administration can afford to start a new war, not before Iraq is "pacified". It would cost too much and would be too risky in terms of popularity of the president.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B00kwOrm)
    I don't think any new US administration can afford to start a new war, not before Iraq is "pacified". It would cost too much and would be too risky in terms of popularity of the president.
    The USA can't afford that? Are you sure?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    So the question is - should all nations who have nuclear weapons disarm their warheads?

    Would this create a safer world? I believe the world is unsafe whilst any country has the capability to launch a nuclear strike and I do not believe that the US is any less danger to world peace than any other nation.
    I don't think the disarmament of nuclear weapons would make the world any safer. The likelihood of conventional wars would be a lot higher. There would have been a new war between India and Pakistan already, were it not for nuclear weapons. Same goes for the Cold War.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    No 'sane' country would use Nuclear weapons as they would instantly become a pariah nation at best (assuming the recipient had no nuclear technology of their own) or be wiped out themselves should the target also have a nuclear arsenal. Its the places with real nutjobs in charge like North Korea youve got to look out for.
    Or Iran.

    (Original post by B00kwOrm)
    I don't think any new US administration can afford to start a new war, not before Iraq is "pacified". It would cost too much and would be too risky in terms of popularity of the president.
    Yes, but if Bush wins the next election he cant stand for a third term. Plus you must remember that the Jews control the USA - they dont really give a damn about USA man power (but who can blame them?) - only Israel and world Jewry.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B00kwOrm)
    I don't think the disarmament of nuclear weapons would make the world any safer. The likelihood of conventional wars would be a lot higher. There would have been a new war between India and Pakistan already, were it not for nuclear weapons. Same goes for the Cold War.
    Conventional wars are no threat to the planets 'health' if you want to use such sickly green terms, whereas a nuclear war would be catastrophic.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nik P)
    http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...r_wh/us_iran_4

    "We cannot allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon. The international community has got to find a way to come together and to make certain that that does not happen." Rice

    Rice should be fired... she is a liability and a liar... not to mention a *****...
    should israel be allowed?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Conventional wars are no threat to the planets 'health' if you want to use such sickly green terms, whereas a nuclear war would be catastrophic.
    Well, sorry, if I'm about to be wiped out by a tank army going through my country (which was very likely only 15-16 years ago) then the last thing I care about is the planet.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.