Well maybe except if you are dropping nuclear bombs.. Which actually has quite a large blast radius. I think they got the church too.... stOx.. Dude you seem totally nonsensical. So the fact that they dropped the bomb means that they can very much be trusted with it? Is that a prerequisite to being trusted with nuclear armament. You have to have used it on people in the past? In regards to the OPs original claim. I must admit that I myself would be more uneasy with a nuclear armed Iran. But not as uneasy as I was back when Bush controlled the button for the US. Now there was a madman who never should have had that kind of power. Shame on you Americans for voting on such egocentric below average intelligence cowboy. stOx claims that nuclear armament happens through some kind of Global consensus. A further proof of his range to reality. So who voted yes on the US having them.. Or further down the road India and Pakistan? The fact of the matter is that nuclear weapons are here and a part of reality today. I agree with much of what BadBoyzStudioZ says. The road ahead SHOULD be DIS-armament. On the other hand I also agree with many of Traditione´s points. We are standing on the wests side arguing that we are the only ones morally grown up to be "trusted" with them. When historically the west has been the only ones evil enough to actually drop them on people. Guess there is no simple answer to some questions. I just hope that what ever course events take, that people wont get killed over it. Be it by a Iranian nuclear bomb or an American pre-emptive strike to disarm Iran.
There is an argument that the only time in history when a nuclear bomb was used millitarily is was use responsibly. There is an argument that the use of it ended a war which would otherwise have lasted a very long time and caused a far greater amount of deaths. Using something resposibly doesn't mean never using it. The fact that one of these devices has only been used once, a very long time ago, even though many countries have had them for decades, shows that those who do have them aren't the types of countries who would use them unless they really need to. The same can't be said for a country like Iran. Like i said, people don't vote. What happens is a country starts to research them, builds the equipment to produce them, makes some, tests them and along that proceedure concerns are raised. If no concernes are raised then they are allowed to carry on. If concerns are raised then we say "we don't feel confortable with you having these devices." That is as ridiculous as saying "children should be able to drive" on the grounds that most automobile deaths are caused by adults and concluding that "only adults are bad enough at driving to cause deaths".
Thanks for enlightening We didn't know that you also consider that there are certain selected countries which enjoy the privileges of being 'adult' and the rest are 'childish noobs' does it really make any sense? There is no adult/child relationship between nations, they are equal, please broaden your narrow vision and start accepting others with a open heart
See, it's like giving an angry 5 year old a shotgun. If Iran was trustworthy, it would be a different story.
if we compared between the history of the two nations search in google for persian civilization and you will know how old Iran is if you believe that US have who already destroyed two cities have the right of having nucleur weapons then any other country should have the same right i am sorry but Iran have more than 8000 years
What a bunch of nonsense. Iran is run by a bunch of sick Mullahs who took over around 30 years ago. Can you explain how you can claim that Iran has a right to nuclear weapons when Iran itself signed the NPT wherein Iran agrees that they are not allowed to have nuclear weapons? Some of you people don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about. I guess you just conveniently ignore the fact that Iran has agreed not to have nuclear weapons.
I will say this in defense of removing Iran's right to have a weapon of mass destruction- Representative governments are the only that can be tolerated to even have the weapon. Iran's hidden cabal of a government most likely has the authority to do what they wish well beyond the grasp of their voters...So...To for a second assume that our nations are not in cahoots and both equally deranged at the top...It is disturbing to give the weapon to a group of a few men that took over the nation less than a half century ago as opposed to having it controlled by the aggregate controlled desire of the citizens.
New, I don't see fanatical islamist states as childish, I see them as primitive savages. Maybe you took my metaphor too litterally.
stOx.. Your responses bear the mark of somebody whose perception is shrouded by misconceptions. Let me just leave you with this. Your analogies make no sense at all. Your logical sense seem faulty to say the least and you really dont seem to make the right connections when people try to explain things to you. There exists a myriad of arguments out there. You dont need to take them all as being gospel. Defending this one in particular just makes you seem like more of a fanatic than you already showed yourself to be.
Promo you seem incapable of actually arguing against any of my points, let alone arguing for yours, beyond what is evidently your usual baseless assertions that something is "illogical" and the expectation that we are going to take your word for it.
if iran gets nuclear weapons it will be a matter of time until some terrorist group supported by iran gets their hands on a working bomb, mark my words.
If your idea of arguing for a point is to deliver numerous nonsensical and irrelevant analogies, then yes. I am incapable of doing that. I merely pointed out that you have several logical gaps in your argument and standing up and saying "I heard somebody else say that at some time". Does not make it a valid point. furthermore I learnt long ago that it doesent do you any good arguing with fanatics. Just makes you need alkazelser. So jippea you win and get to stay in delusion world. Congratz.
You aren't pointing it out though, you are just stating it without offering any reasoning. That's the point. You simply state that there are "several logical gaps" without ever stating what those gaps are or why they are illogical. Or are you just trying to use words you have heard intellectuals use in the belief that simply using those words makes you points valid?
Actually if you read my first reply you might get a grasp of where I think your logic is faulty. I am not much for repeating myself, so take it as a challenge and read my post again. Ohh and if one of us is a pseudo intellectual.... It aint me..
Agreed... the problem with all these other countries is corruption. I went to 3 other 3rd world countries and everyone asked me to bribe them with cash. I had a cop pull me over in one place and he asked me to show him some money or he would send me to jail? wth? Yes.. I was pissed, I have to pay some guy for nothing... So if that can happen, why can't a leader be paid off? And I do agree with your comment. Lets say a good leader is elected, some terrorist will just blow him off. That's the biggest problem out there. At least in the states, canada, uk etc.. people can debate. You don't just go shoot the president or kill someone or ask someone to pay you for nothing... The nukes in the states are better protected and has good security. Iran.... forget it... I bet getting access to them would be fairly easy.