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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If bush had spent the money he has spent on invading afgahistan and iraq on securing weapons grade nuclear material the world would be a much safer place.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    You're kidding, right?!
    So you do think that Bush would use nuclear wepons?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    So you do think that Bush would use nuclear wepons?
    Well why else would he invest so much money in the arms race to develop these weapons if he wasn't prepared to use them? I doubt he would be crazy enough to use them without major provocation, but if threatened with, say, a nuclear attack from another country, I'm sure he'd find a way to justify himself.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tourniquet)
    Well why else would he invest so much money in the arms race to develop these weapons if he wasn't prepared to use them? I doubt he would be crazy enough to use them without major provocation, but if threatened with, say, a nuclear attack from another country, I'm sure he'd find a way to justify himself.
    We would all probably die if there was a nuclear war. Sad but true.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    We would all probably die if there was a nuclear war. Sad but true.
    I think that depends very much on the scale of the war. I doubt their would be enough countries stupid enough to nuke each other, and subsequently the entire human civilisation, into oblivion based on the say-so of one man.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Exactly so why is it a problem as long as countries like the USA have superior fire power which was the argument you used before.
    it isnt a problem, but its not a static situation. the US needs to keep acquiring and producing and spending to maintain its distance over the less than amiable nations.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiMagicMan)
    . The only kind of people who would consider using nuclear weapons unprovoked are terrorists and you can't use nuclear weapons as a detterent against a group that doesn't have a nation. Sure you could nuke the country they operate in, but that will simply breed new terrorists.

    The days of the cold war are over, all out nuclear war is not really a threat these days, the threat is terrorists obtaining nuclear weapons, and simply having more weapons than the terrorists is not going to stop them.
    um, which is basically a development of my point.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    it isnt a problem, but its not a static situation. the US needs to keep acquiring and producing and spending to maintain its distance over the less than amiable nations.
    Actually it is a huge problem. Countries like Iran and North Korea support terrorist organisations, and when they get hold on Nuclear weapons it will be way more difficult to put pressure on them. The americans were lucky Saddam did not have any WMDs operationable, cus if he did the Iraq war would have been a complete humanitarian disaster.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tourniquet)
    Well why else would he invest so much money in the arms race to develop these weapons if he wasn't prepared to use them? I doubt he would be crazy enough to use them without major provocation, but if threatened with, say, a nuclear attack from another country, I'm sure he'd find a way to justify himself.
    I note again: The US is DECREASING their stock of nuclear weapons. The US and Russia has been destructing nuclear warheads since 1988.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Yes I have been reading the news I was talking more about the USA complaining about the Iranian developement of nuclear wepons when other countries who could be considered equally dangerous ie North Korea already have many.
    "But everyone else was doing it!!!".
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Actually it is a huge problem. Countries like Iran and North Korea support terrorist organisations, and when they get hold on Nuclear weapons it will be way more difficult to put pressure on them. The americans were lucky Saddam did not have any WMDs operationable, cus if he did the Iraq war would have been a complete humanitarian disaster.
    In this respect Blair is such an idiot
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    My gut response is that no countries should be allowed to maintain a nuclear capability. However, I'm not living in a dream world. I can never foresee any of the current 5 members of the 'Nuclear Club' giving up the their weapons... with the minutely possible exception of the UK due to their (our) closeness to the US.

    Despite the fact that given most current nuclear powers inclusiding India and Pakistan are not going tp disarm, my natural instinct is still to minimise the number of countries with a nuclear arsenal. Despite brash jokes made about Bush, I do not think the US or any other country with nukes are going to use nukes in the foreseeable future as the consequences are unbearable. Maybe the biggest threat is from terrorists and I believe the best way to stop them acquiring nukes is to simply keep the number of countries with such weapons down.

    My argument follows no intellectual line of thought, and doesn't come across well in print. But it's my feelings on the subject.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tednol)
    I can never foresee any of the current 5 members of the 'Nuclear Club' giving up the their weapons... with the minutely possible exception of the UK due to their (our) closeness to the US.
    Stupid question but these 5 are....?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Stupid question but these 5 are....?
    The permenent members of the Security Council. UK, US, China, Russia and France.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tednol)
    The permenent members of the Security Council. UK, US, China, Russia and France.
    I thought it was USA, North Korea, China, Russia, UK for some reason.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uclear_weapons):

    Declared nuclear states in order of number of deployed weapons
    The following is a list of nations that have admitted the possession of nuclear weapons, and the approximate number of warheads under their control. This list is informally known in global politics as the "Nuclear Club".

    United States - 10,640
    Russia - 8,600
    People's Republic of China - 400
    France - 350
    United Kingdom - 200
    India - 60-90
    Pakistan - 24-48
    From a high of 65,000 weapons in 1985, there were about 40,000 nuclear weapons in the world in 2002.
    The article continues detailing who has given up nuclear arms and who is seeking nuclear arms.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Why would France want so many I don't know. Unless it's from the Cold War.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Why would France want so many I don't know. Unless it's from the Cold War.
    France have always wanted to be a power in their own right... and unlike the UK they don't have ally they feel they can trust 100% that has nukes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tednol)
    France have always wanted to be a power in their own right...
    Yes the way they try to benefit from the EU and all that. Wish they woke up to the real world

    (Original post by Tednol)
    and unlike the UK they don't have ally they feel they can trust 100% that has nukes.
    We have an ally we can trust 100%?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tednol)
    France have always wanted to be a power in their own right... and unlike the UK they don't have ally they feel they can trust 100% that has nukes.
    Its not that they distrust their allies, it is as you say - they want power in their own right.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
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.