Should Iran be allowed to develop nuclear weapons?

Yes they do.

So it is very much any country that is friends with America is allowed nuclear bombs. It just doesn't seem right that America should be allowed to dictate who has and doesn't have nuclear wepons.

So it is very much any country that is friends with America is allowed nuclear bombs. It just doesn't seem right that America should be allowed to dictate who has and doesn't have nuclear wepons.

When shall people get this. Israel, Pakistan and India are allowed to have Nuclear Weapons programmes because they have not signed the non proliferation treaty of nuclear weapons. North Korea, Iraq and Iran HAS signed this agreement and abused the rights they have gained under it to import nuclear technology and used it in WMD programmes. THIS is what it is all about. Had India , Pakistan and Israel signed the NPA then they would have gotn just as much shit as Iran and North Korea for having WMD programmes, but they have not. Israel, India and Pakistan has not signed this agreement because they are all in situations were they know they cannot afford to make such an agreement. They therefore do not sign it, and hence do not violate any international laws. Iran, however, deliberately broke the agreement and abused the rights it gained under it.

Can I ask which government of Iran signed it. Weather it was the current one or a completely different one and when this treaty was signed.

I dont know, but it doesnt matter as the current government has not declared that they were to leave it. They abused its rights in order to violate it knowingly, and that is a serious violation no matter how you twist and turn it...

My only point to do with disarmenment was that if America have such a problem with nuclear wepons then they would call for mutual disarmenment or atleast a reduction in the number.

All I am saying is that it seems wronge that the current government should be held to a treaty that they didn't want. I don't really think that it is the buissness of the international community to dictate what other countries do when they are not posing an imediate threat.

Obviously you have completely missed the fact that Russia and the US have both destructed several thousands of nuclear warheads during the years and greatly reduced its stock of nuclear weapons. That the US develops new ones is not because they increase the numbers of them, but because they want to incorporate present day technology into their defense and deterrant. On average the US is currently reducing its stock of nuclear weapons, criticism is due to the fact that they are developing new types to replace some of the older and outdated ones.

All I am saying is that it seems wronge that the current government should be held to a treaty that they didn't want. I don't really think that it is the buissness of the international community to dictate what other countries do when they are not posing an imediate threat.

So, let me be clear about this. Are you saying that if a country signs a treaty they should be free to rid themselves of their obligations under that treaty as soon as a new government takes office?

Or, do I misunderstand you?

It wouldn't take more than a dozen nuclear missiles to destroy this world!

Hmm really? Where did you pull that stat from? It is a great myth that using nuclear weapons will destroy the world. The fact is, it won't, sure it will destroy large swathes of land, but the earth is a big place.

depends what you mean with destroy. A few dozen 50 megaton hydrogen bombs could extinguish most life on the surface, but physically destroying the planet would require an ammount of energy equivalent to what the entire sun produce during 3 days. Now, that is not peanut ammounts of energy. It would correspond to having an arsenal of nukes with a collected weight close to that of Jupiter.

I'll ask you the same question. Where did you pull those figures from? How many nuclear weapons do you think have ever been detonated on this planet? 2? 3? The answer is closer to thousands. Yet we are all still happily sitting here debating this subject.

And also what do you think is the average destructive capability of a nuclear weapon these days? 50 Megatons? 100 Megatons? The answer is nearer to about 10-20 kilotons. With maybe the very biggest being somewhere near half a megaton.

The simple fact is that there is a lot of FUD out there about nuclear weapons. They are really just larger versions of conventional weapons with some radiation effects as well. It would be literally impossible to eliminate life with nuclear weapons simply because the entire surface of the planet is covered with life. And no military commander is going to waste his time nuking desserts and rainforests, they may make a concerted effort to target large cities and military installations, but that is not going to cover the entire planet.

You know if you speak in a cellphone for one and a half hour the ammount of radiation passing through your head corresponds to putting your head in the microwave for 10 seconds. Does this mean its the same thing? Hardly. Just as there is a different between giving someone 500 slight pufs, and socking them for all your worth straight in the face, detonating one nuclear weapon at a time is far different from fiering an arsenal of 10 000 in a nuclear war. The US and Sovjet sit on enough nukes to completely destroy the prospects for human life several times over.

For those that wish American dominance would end, don't fear, no empire has ever lasted forever , time is incredible.

Yes that is true. Many people overlook this. I bet in the times when Britain was the superpower people were asking will it ever end!

No idea who has remained the largest superpower thus far though.
Thing is, will USA lose its superpower status in our lifetime? I'm not sure myself.

of course. for the reasons laid out in the preceeding posts.


we cant trust anyone, but the US is the lesser of our evils and we trust them more than we can trust Iran. its realpolitik.


thats an amiable view, but one evil leaders will not hold. for our safety we have to prevent the use of Nuclear weapons by holding more of them. you dont see the use of nuclear weapons because no-one is willing to use them while the US continues to produce them. Europe doesnt have any because we know the US feel obliged to protect us. that is a far more scandalous position.