Nuke question

[Theweirdtophat]

I am wondering why is Iran not allowed to have nukes since they openly dislike Americans and Israel and a lot of other countries, yet North Korea has nukes and they openly dislike America, South Korea and pretty much everyone else. Why are they allowed to have their nukes but people are trying to prevent Iran from having nukes? If it's because it's a thing against Muslims, why does Pakistan have nukes, too. I mean no one makes a big deal about Pakistan having nukes despite the fact there are more people in Pakistan than Iran, have a more powerful military and so forth. People will say India is keeping Pakistan in check, but Iran is next to Turkey which is a NATO ally.

 

[Sees]

Nobody wants more countries with the capability, period.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Nobody wants more countries with the capability, period.

But who gave us or anyone the right to say "Oh you can have nukes, but you guys, no, we don't trust you, you can't have nukes like us."? I didn't see too many people make an effort to stop Pakistan and North Korea for having nukes. There's no consistency here. Besides it's rather pointless to stop others from getting nukes, as they'd achieve it eventually anyway, if they go to different countries, study at different schools and bring the knowledge back to their country.

 

[Willamena]

But who gave us or anyone the right to say "Oh you can have nukes, but you guys, no, we don't trust you, you can't have nukes like us."? I didn't see too many people make an effort to stop Pakistan and North Korea for having nukes. There's no consistency here. Besides it's rather pointless to stop others from getting nukes, as they'd achieve it eventually anyway, if they go to different countries, study at different schools and bring the knowledge back to their country.

International accord.

 

[CMike]

I am wondering why is Iran not allowed to have nukes since they openly dislike Americans and Israel and a lot of other countries, yet North Korea has nukes and they openly dislike America, South Korea and pretty much everyone else. Why are they allowed to have their nukes but people are trying to prevent Iran from having nukes? If it's because it's a thing against Muslims, why does Pakistan have nukes, too. I mean no one makes a big deal about Pakistan having nukes despite the fact there are more people in Pakistan than Iran, have a more powerful military and so forth. People will say India is keeping Pakistan in check, but Iran is next to Turkey which is a NATO ally.

Because Iran continuously threatens to destroy the US and Israel.

Also, they are the root of almost all major Islamic terrorist organizations.

The danger is when they get nukes they will give it to one of their proxies to use it against our interests, such as detonating a nuke in NYC or LA.

Also with North Korea it's too late. The idea is to stop Iran before it becomes a North Korea.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Because Iran continuously threatens to destroy the US and Israel.

Also, they are the root of almost all major Islamic terrorist organizations.

The danger is when they get nukes they will give it to one of their proxies to use it against our interests, such as detonating a nuke in NYC or LA.

Also with North Korea it's too late. The idea is to stop Iran before it becomes a North Korea.

How many times as North Korea threatened us or South Korea, our friend and ally, but yet they keep their nukes. North Korea got nukes. They didn't start out with nukes, they got it, but nobody tried to stop them. Pakistan isn't the biggest fan of US or Israel or others but no one tried to stop Pakistan from getting it. Iran isn't the root of the terrorist organizations, but they have been involved.. Iran isn't stupid, as they know they'd be nuked if they would try it on us or Israel or anyone else. Their agenda isn't going to be accomplished by making others angry.

Iran would be like North Korea. They'll talk but won't back it up. It would be just a stand off like with US and Russia. Both sides will talk tough but won't use nukes because they have too much to lose.

 

[metis]

If Iran were to get nukes, they'd be inclined to use them. It is the Shi'i imams who run Iran, and they firmly believe as a mark of their faith in the "end-times" leading into the emergence of the "12th Imam".

 

[Theweirdtophat]

If Iran were to get nukes, they'd be inclined to use them. It is the Shi'i imams who run Iran, and they firmly believe as a mark of their faith in the "end-times" leading into the emergence of the "12th Imam".

There's no guarantee they'd use it. The 12th Imam isn't the Mahdi as the Mahdi is supposed to bring peace along with Jesus, not reduce Jerusalem to ashes, which is also holy to Muslims. Besides I haven't seen Pakistan use them against Israel either and they aren't the biggest fans of them either.

 

[CMike]

There's no guarantee they'd use it. The 12th Imam isn't the Mahdi as the Mahdi is supposed to bring peace along with Jesus, not reduce Jerusalem to ashes, which is also holy to Muslims. Besides I haven't seen Pakistan use them against Israel either and they aren't the biggest fans of them either.

I don't want to wait for a guarantee.

They constantly threaten to destroy the US and Israel.

I think we should believe that they mean to do what they say they mean to do.

 

[columbus]

Because once you have a nuke the world's sole remaining superpower will not mess with you.

Realpolitik, hypocrisy, call it what you will.

Speaking of which, why are "old European" countries like UK and France still on the UN security council? This is the 21st century, not post WWII meltdown. Why cheese eating surrender monkeys and not India?

Tom

 

[metis]

There's no guarantee they'd use it. The 12th Imam isn't the Mahdi as the Mahdi is supposed to bring peace along with Jesus, not reduce Jerusalem to ashes, which is also holy to Muslims. Besides I haven't seen Pakistan use them against Israel either and they aren't the biggest fans of them either.

There are some who believe they would likely use it. The issue of the Mahdi is conjectural in regards to how it has been applied in the past since there's been some who claimed to be that person, so it could very well happen again. Since his role will be both that of a leader and a warrior that leads to victory against evil, it's not too hard to picture someone making such a claim and getting people to support them. Even though Jerusalem itself would not likely be specifically targeted, the rest of Israel would undoubtedly be fair game.

 

[ShivaFan]

It isn't as much nukes, though of course nukes are horrific in destructive capability.

Let me take it down to a more benign level, let us say Enfield rifles which can do serious damage to another human being.

I think it is ok for law abiding citizens to have Enfield rifles. Or like rifles (I have rifles myself). Take these girls for example:

Girls from the Durga Vahini, the women's faction of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad or World Hindu Council, getting rifle training at an enclosed range (below).

In fact, I think militias (militia in the original American terms, not as in "State militias" but private armies of private citizens) are ok ...

But ...

If you are a gang-banger criminal caught using a gun in a crime, no you should not be allowed an Enfield. No no. Nice Hindu girls of VHP, yes, Mexican gang-banger, no.

In fact, I think if you are caught using a gun in a crime, on the third instance you should be executed.

So it would have been an issue if Hitler got the nuke in 1945, because he WOULD have dropped it on Stalingrad and Moscow ..

Japan tried to drop containers of fleas with bubonic plague by balloons into San Francisco CA during WW2 but missing and they landed in the boonies of Washington and Oregon and were useles. I do not think Japan should have gotten the nuke in 1944 because they would have nuked China. ....

But today, I think Japan needs to REARM and I would not have a problem with them having the nuke.

In fact, they probably will need it soon ...

I DON'T like Pakistan having the nuke. But - I DO like India having it.

You see, Iran is bent on killing all the Jews - well, some of the top Mullahs running Iran. So until Iran undergoes a complete reformation like Japan, everything must be done to stop that until their own people overthrow the Mullahs ... which WILL happen but not right now.

That would be like Mexican gang bangers having Enfields legally. But they have far worse and are working with the Islamic terrorist to come over the Southern US-Mexican border. This is what Obama calls "immigration". It is so bad in fact, this invasion and stress, not only will it NOT result in better relations with Mexico which could soon become another failed state, in fact given time this will result in exactly the opposite, an open border will result in WAR with Mexico.

We may even have to nuke some city in Mexico if it is taken over by cartel terrorists working with other terrorists including Islamic terrorists.

 

[Nietzsche]

No one, at the bare minimum, in the Middle East, Africa or Central Asia should have nuclear weapons. Period. Hell, chuck South & Central America into that list. It's a recipe for disaster & reckless brinksmanship. None of the states in those areas are remotely competent or responsible enough to safely have them.

But since we live in our world, I'm kind of iffy on saying Iran shouldn't be allowed nuclear weapons. I don't like the idea, but I don't like Israel having them either. Or North Korea. Or Pakistan. And depending on what kind of government is in place, India.

So for me personally...meh. Balance of power is important.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

It isn't as much nukes, though of course nukes are horrific in destructive capability.

Let me take it down to a more benign level, let us say Enfield rifles which can do serious damage to another human being.

I think it is ok for law abiding citizens to have Enfield rifles. Or like rifles (I have rifles myself). Take these girls for example:

Girls from the Durga Vahini, the women's faction of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad or World Hindu Council, getting rifle training at an enclosed range (below).

In fact, I think militias (militia in the original American terms, not as in "State militias" but private armies of private citizens) are ok ...

But ...

If you are a gang-banger criminal caught using a gun in a crime, no you should not be allowed an Enfield. No no. Nice Hindu girls of VHP, yes, Mexican gang-banger, no.

In fact, I think if you are caught using a gun in a crime, on the third instance you should be executed.

So it would have been an issue if Hitler got the nuke in 1945, because he WOULD have dropped it on Stalingrad and Moscow ..

Japan tried to drop containers of fleas with bubonic plague by balloons into San Francisco CA during WW2 but missing and they landed in the boonies of Washington and Oregon and were useles. I do not think Japan should have gotten the nuke in 1944 because they would have nuked China. ....

But today, I think Japan needs to REARM and I would not have a problem with them having the nuke.

In fact, they probably will need it soon ...

I DON'T like Pakistan having the nuke. But - I DO like India having it.

You see, Iran is bent on killing all the Jews - well, some of the top Mullahs running Iran. So until Iran undergoes a complete reformation like Japan, everything must be done to stop that until their own people overthrow the Mullahs ... which WILL happen but not right now.

That would be like Mexican gang bangers having Enfields legally. But they have far worse and are working with the Islamic terrorist to come over the Southern US-Mexican border. This is what Obama calls "immigration". It is so bad in fact, this invasion and stress, not only will it NOT result in better relations with Mexico which could soon become another failed state, in fact given time this will result in exactly the opposite, an open border will result in WAR with Mexico.

We may even have to nuke some city in Mexico if it is taken over by cartel terrorists working with other terrorists including Islamic terrorists.

Iran doesn't want to kill all the Jews. If that was the case, they would have killed all of the Jews in Iran. There still are some in Iran as well as Zoroastrians and other non Muslims. The ones running Iran will be overthrown eventually. Chaotic leaders generally are. The ones running Iran may be crazy but they're not stupid. It's not like they don't know Israel has nukes. If they were the only ones on the planet that had nukes, it's possible but since more than one country has nukes including Israel, they aren't stupid enough to attack.

 

[columbus]

I DON'T like Pakistan having the nuke. But - I DO like India having it.

That is the whole problem with warmongers.

They are all about horrible weapons. They just want to be in charge of who gets them.

When it turns out that some people disagree with their politics we have another war, worse than the last one.


The next one will make WWII look like a day at the beach.

Tom

 

[Bunyip]

From the non-American perspective, it is hard not to see the US as the most aggressive and warlike of all nations. Frankly as far as being candidates for the right to nuclear arms, the USA would be at the bottom of the list. I can think of few countries I would less like to see with such power.
In a perfect world, there would be no nukes. Given that there are, few things are more frightening than a lone nuclear armed and highly aggressive superpower.

 

[Nietzsche]

From the non-American perspective, it is hard not to see the US as the most aggressive and warlike of all nations. Frankly as far as being candidates for the right to nuclear arms, the USA would be at the bottom of the list. I can think of few countries I would less like to see with such power.
In a perfect world, there would be no nukes. Given that there are, few things are more frightening than a lone nuclear armed and highly aggressive superpower.

...

Uh-huh. Let's assume you're right about the US(you aren't). What good is a blasted, barren wasteland for a state that wants to dominate the planet?

 

[Bunyip]

...

Uh-huh. Let's assume you're right about the US(you aren't). What good is a blasted, barren wasteland for a state that wants to dominate the planet?

Not sure what you are asking, can you please clarify?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

...

Uh-huh. Let's assume you're right about the US(you aren't). What good is a blasted, barren wasteland for a state that wants to dominate the planet?

Plus, we only used nukes in war twice during WWII. If we were really that aggressive, we would be using them a lot more.

As an aside, I wouldn't mind going to war with North Korea to topple that corrupt monarchy and free the people. But that's just my idealism.

 

[BSM1]

From the non-American perspective, it is hard not to see the US as the most aggressive and warlike of all nations. Frankly as far as being candidates for the right to nuclear arms, the USA would be at the bottom of the list. I can think of few countries I would less like to see with such power.
In a perfect world, there would be no nukes. Given that there are, few things are more frightening than a lone nuclear armed and highly aggressive superpower.

The US is the only nation that has actually used an atomic weapon against an enemy. Thankfully we only had to do it once. We never had to use another such weapon since then, and no other country has dared to us one against anyone else. If the US was such a warmongering nation then we could have strong-armed the rest of the world into submission after WWII. Even after other countries developed their own weapons we could have wiped them off the face of the earth if we were so inclined. Korea is held in check by China. Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is controlled by it's military which has displayed a great deal of sense. Iran has mad e every indication that it would use any weapon in it's bag to achieve the goal of Israeli annihilation. Nukes are here to stay whether you like it or not. Our superpower status has kept the world intact for the last seventy years. If the US were not the main superpower who would you want it to be?