Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThornsnRoses)
    should israel be allowed?
    I cant imagine a scenario where they would be allowed to use them (bear in mind Israel is little more than another US state)though theyre so trigger happy who knows what could happen should they have an arsenal.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    The USA can't afford that? Are you sure?
    The US are in debt already, ok, that figure is nothing compared to their economic power and all, but still, even the US have to consider financial issues, even with a military budget of 400 billion US$ p.a.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B00kwOrm)
    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.
    Conventional wars generally have little impact on the world, there have been countless hundreds of thousands of them throughout human history after all - it would take one nuclear war to end human history.
    Which country are you from?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Haven't Iran got better things to do than invest in nuclear weapons? They're not exactly rich are they?
    I don't think the regime really cares if the population is starving, look at North Korea, same thing, the people are starving, yet ridiculous sums of money are being poured into the armed forces.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B00kwOrm)
    I don't think the regime really cares if the population is starving, look at North Korea, same thing, the people are starving, yet ridiculous sums of money are being poured into the armed forces.
    I know. Which is why people just don't bother with charities.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Conventional wars generally have little impact on the world, there have been countless hundreds of thousands of them throughout human history after all - it would take one nuclear war to end human history.
    Which country are you from?
    Ok, that's one way of looking at it. Fair enough. But still, I'd rather have no war at all, and if peace can be achieved by owning nuclear weapons, then so be it, the cost of any war would be much higher. I'm from Germany. If the Cold War had gone hot, so to speak, we would have had one huge tank battle, not much would have been left after 5000 Warsaw Pact tanks would have marched through.

    Oh and to top it off the French would have used their tactical nukes ("Force Hadès") to stop the Russian tanks- and nuke our cities in the process. It's probably due to the French that the Cold War stayed "cold" - they threatened to throw anything they had at the Russians if they were threatened. The US wanted to fight back in kind- tanks vs. tanks, nukes vs. nukes. De Gaulle's idea was, if were threatened in any way, we'll fight back with everything we have.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B00kwOrm)
    Oh and to top it off the French would have used their tactical nukes ("Force Hadès") to stop the Russian tanks- and nuke our cities in the process. It's probably due to the French that the Cold War stayed "cold" - they threatened to throw anything they had at the Russians if they were threatened. The US wanted to fight back in kind- tanks vs. tanks, nukes vs. nukes. De Gaulle's idea was, if were threatened in any way, we'll fight back with everything we have.
    The French are not good when it comes to military expertise. Their huge defeats in the past can show that they still have this habit today
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B00kwOrm)
    Ok, that's one way of looking at it. Fair enough. But still, I'd rather have no war at all, and if peace can be achieved by owning nuclear weapons, then so be it, the cost of any war would be much higher. I'm from Germany. If the Cold War had gone hot, so to speak, we would have had one huge tank battle, not much would have been left after 5000 Warsaw Pact tanks would have marched through.
    Fair enough, its a valid scenario.

    (Original post by B00kwOrm)
    Oh and to top it off the French would have used their tactical nukes ("Force Hadès") to stop the Russian tanks- and nuke our cities in the process. It's probably due to the French that the Cold War stayed "cold" - they threatened to throw anything they had at the Russians if they were threatened. The US wanted to fight back in kind- tanks vs. tanks, nukes vs. nukes. De Gaulle's idea was, if were threatened in any way, we'll fight back with everything we have.
    Going by the record of the French when it comes to world wars theyd have had the nukes upside down when they fired them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    I cant imagine a scenario where they would be allowed to use them (bear in mind Israel is little more than another US state)though theyre so trigger happy who knows what could happen should they have an arsenal.
    They have a nuclear arsenal, about 200 warheads, they even admitted to it recently if I recall. But they wouldn't just start a nuclear war- only if they were invaded and saw no other way out.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B00kwOrm)
    They have a nuclear arsenal, about 200 warheads, they even admitted to it recently if I recall. But they wouldn't just start a nuclear war- only if they were invaded and saw no other way out.
    So one would hope, but Israel is far from the most rational nation on Earth.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Going by the record of the French when it comes to world wars theyd have had the nukes upside down when they fired them.
    lol I think the French learnt a lot, they've got an excellent army now and De Gaulle was a smart man, no-one listened to him when he was in favour of buying tanks. The main reason for French defeat in WWII was poor leadership. The French soldiers weren't cowards, but try fighting a tank with a rifle and see how far you get.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    So one would hope, but Israel is far from the most rational nation on Earth.
    Ok, just to make it clear: I am not pro-Israel. But really, they're a lot more rational than a Stalinist dictatorship or a state ruled by religious fanatics. Because those people will not be afraid to push the button to kill "class enemies" or "infidels".
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B00kwOrm)
    lol I think the French learnt a lot, they've got an excellent army now and De Gaulle was a smart man, no-one listened to him when he was in favour of buying tanks. The main reason for French defeat in WWII was poor leadership. The French soldiers weren't cowards, but try fighting a tank with a rifle and see how far you get.
    True enough. As much as i think he was an ungrateful little shite de Gaulle would probably have stopped the war of 1939 becoming World War 2 had the politicians accepted his advice. The French leadership has a lot to answer for, had they been remotely competent wed be looking back on 1914 as the start of a 'provincial' European war and 1939 would never have happened.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B00kwOrm)
    Ok, just to make it clear: I am not pro-Israel. But really, they're a lot more rational than a Stalinist dictatorship or a state ruled by religious fanatics. Because those people will not be afraid to push the button to kill "class enemies" or "infidels".
    This is true, however it does not serve as an excuse for their self harmingly antagonistic policies regarding the palestinians.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    This is true, however it does not serve as an excuse for their self harmingly antagonistic policies regarding the palestinians.
    Of course not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imperial_baby)
    i'm iranian
    How would you feel if America invaded Iran to stop their nuclear program? do you think it would be justified?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    should a nation be allowed to do anything is an interesting question?

    The only body that can decide what another nation does is a nation that is more powerful and prepared to use economic or miliatary tactics to try to influence that country.

    International law as far as I understand is an idealistic set of ideals that are put forward to try and increase stability. However I doubt an nation has ever considered it when it comes down to tought decisions like its own geopolitical influence. What I mean here is if a country with alot of power decides it geopolitical power is being unsettled or feels that there is something to gain from a certain action, most of the time it will carry out that action regardless of the morality of it. This policy of realpolitik is one that most nations in the world follow I think. The only 2 thing that seems to affect there extent are the nation's power and the extent of their international interests. Some nations have greater interests than others. Ie china has a large army = lots of power but does hardly any interfering. USA = similar amounts of power and prehaps because it is richer, interfers alot more.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    should a nation be allowed to do anything is an interesting question?

    The only body that can decide what another nation does is a nation that is more powerful and prepared to use economic or miliatary tactics to try to influence that country.

    International law as far as I understand is an idealistic set of ideals that are put forward to try and increase stability. However I doubt an nation has ever considered it when it comes down to tought decisions like its own geopolitical influence. What I mean here is if a country with alot of power decides it geopolitical power is being unsettled or feels that there is something to gain from a certain action, most of the time it will carry out that action regardless of the morality of it. This policy of realpolitik is one that most nations in the world follow I think. The only 2 thing that seems to affect there extent are the nation's power and the extent of their international interests. Some nations have greater interests than others. Ie china has a large army = lots of power but does hardly any interfering. USA = similar amounts of power and prehaps because it is richer, interfers alot more.
    I see your point. China fu*ks up Tibet and America does nothing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Invisible)
    Isn't that a stupid question?
    I was asking the person who stated they were Iranian how they would feel, as it can be interesting to gain insight into the view of people who are from the country concerned.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is just another move by the USA to "protect" Israel...
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.