Check this article it has a good explanation on Nokia999's question http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0501-24.htm
I've been saying the exact same thing. I call it "balance of power." If everyone has nukes, then why would any country fire a nuke when nukes will be fired back at them? The point is this. The countries that have nukes want to maintain their power by restricting countries that don't have nukes from getting them. That way, the countries with nukes can dominate those countries who do not have them. Iran wants to get nukes to protect themselves, but the US doesn't want them to have them(even though the US has thousands of nukes, and refuses to get rid of them). The US claims Iran is the threat, but I think it is the other way around. The US is threat to Iran precisely because the US has nukes!
You forgot to mention that the US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in a war against another country But I disagree with you. As I said before, Iran government wants to kill me because I'm Anglo-Saxon, the US government doesn't want to kill me. Iran government is fueled by religious fundamentalism which leads to holy wars. The US government isn't fueled with religious fundamentalism. Iran government claims the world belongs to allah and that islam will dominate the world. The US government doesn't claim the world belongs to a religion, and doesn't claim a religion will take over the world. Iran government is powered by a religion which glorifies religious death, jihad. The US government isn't powered by a religion which glorifies religious death. I could go on, but you get the point. If I had the choice of either the US or Iran having possession of nuclear weapons, I would pick US everytime. Now, can you honestly tell me you would rather Iran had nuclear weapons instead of the US?
And since then nobody has used nuclear weapons in any conflict! Draw from that whichever conclusions you wish, but it let's hope that was the last time they are EVER used. And then I disagree with *some* of your points, Blitz Be careful on that one... How often does Tony Blair or any other recent British Prime Minister mention God in public address? And just bear in mind *supposed* reports that US Christian fundamentalists are driving Bush's Middle East policy - again, not especially a grass roots issue but more of an administratve one. So bear in mind that the only mention of religion in the US Constitution is in an exclusionary context such as"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and that"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." That's such a sweeping statement. Don't forget your capitalization lest it deemed as insulting There still exist many Islamic moderates in Iran and it was continuing to moderate until [SIZE=-1]Ahmadinejad came to power.[/SIZE] Again, a generalisation. There are *elements* of these religions that promote the extreme, whether they be at the top or not, and ultimately the moderates are "tarred with the same brush". Don't think for one minute I've gone soft because I'll tell you why - I wrote to my local MP *and* to the Metropolitan Police to press for the stiffest penalties for those who waved placards inciting violence against those who "insult" Islam. Insensitive/hypersensitive though this whole situation may be, nobody should trade an insult for death, that's *totally* ludicrous, but those are the angry idiots who will hopefully be prosecuted/deported if any crimes have been committed (just remember they were *only* exercising their "Freedom of Speech" and now they should be paying for it) No, but death for a "good cause" is supposed to be acceptable. I know exactly what you mean, and I agrree, but that does smack of "you're either with us or against us"... why does everything have to be so polarised? If anyone believes that "sitting on the fence" is such a negative issue then why do the neutral countries of the world get drawn into less conflicts than anybody else? ...Oh wait, Denmark are up to their necks in it But seriously, dude, with extremists on either side we need some strong neutrals to stand tall and break up the party
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=56322 Sure we have religious fanaticism in the United States, even fascist killers preaching, ever hear of the KKK, how about some of the insane TV evangelists like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson
I havent read through all this thread, but i totally agree with this. Why should America or any country in Europe that is armed with nuclear weapons say another country isnt allowed them? Why does any country actually need them? The only argument for people to have these weapons is that other countries would be reluctant to attack a country with nuclear weapons, so in that case why shouldnt iran have them weapons? and just to be padantic but arnt the americans/british the only people to of used nuclear weapons in an act of war during ww2? So shouldnt it be americans etc that arnt allowed to use them as they have proven they are willing to use them
doh just seen that someone has already made a comment about americans using nuclear weapons during ww2
Religion is soooo 1950.. It doesn't matter how you call him. Whether you call him God, Yawa, Allah.. they are all references to the same person, and we don't even have proof that he really exists. Leading a country based on a book written by a bunch of bearded guys is absurd. I don't think Iran should have nucleair weapons either, but I don't even think they have the knowledge to create them to be honest. Back to work, I've got a new book to write about this cool religion I'm going to come up with.. lewneyism.. we all nuke the hell outta each other and see who's left.
BTW.. not a lot of people actually watch the news I guess. The guy that is running Iran is wanting to crush Israel and he has more evil plans. And you guys are symphasizing with him? Get your heads screwed back on guys..
If you knew the history of Israel/Palestine you'd know that the large majority of the Arab/Muslim world doesn't want Israel to exist. There's a reason... because Israel is a country formed under British force, that stole palestinians land and homes and gave it to the Jews. There has been fighting and wars ever since. I wouldn't exactly call that an "evil" plan...
Iran has sufficient knowledge to build a nuclear warhead - thanks to its next door brother Pakistan If viewed in isolation , it seems unfair that one country can have nukes and another cannot. The trouble is once any one of the middle-east countries acquires a nuclear weapon, it will be within a few years that it passes on the expertise to all other Islamic countries. For radical Islamists, the sole criterion for right or wrong is whether it is done by Muslim or a Non- Muslim. The sad part is ,Islam is getting dominated by such fundmentalists. If someone believes Iran should be allowed to get nuclear weapons, he /she may keep arguing for the cause. The world has already seen the consequences of nuclear technology in poorly managed environment. USSR got in an arms race with US and paid a heavy price in Chernobly - a small mistake by inexperienced scientists in an overstretched plant proved fatal for thousands. This time,its not just a question of giving nuclear technology to inexperienced people, but to people who are full of religious obsession. From where I see it, it would be equivalent of giving a live grenade to a patient in a mental ayslum. The new gift may be treasured for a while , but sooner or later someone is going to pay the price.
chernobyl was obviously a horrible disaster that should of been avoided but you make it sound like a nucleor accident would never happen in such a developed country as the US. Though didnt three mile island nearly melt down due to fairlure in the warning systems after several things failed? I would say thats a pretty bad mistake. Granted not as bad as the mistakes made at chernobyl!!
Nearly melt down It was a major disaster for your information that the government and the industry has covered up to this day, it stalled development of nuclear plants in the USA and now Bush is taking money from the industry pushing nuclear power as a solution to the energy problem! http://www.ratical.org/radiation/TMIcoverup.html http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Three+mile+island+coverup&btnG=Google+Search
ah well i stand corrected i coudnt remeber the exact details so just scanned a website quickly about it, and it was a goverment one so that would explain the playing down how serious it was
The United States has more nuclear waste than any nation and so much of it that we don't have a clue as to what to do with it! I say they should put it on the space shuttle and send it into outer space! http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Yucca+mountain+disaster&spell=1 Nuclear power needs to be banned all together, but the cat is out of the bag now and it is our destruction!
You got it, the nuclear industry is the most corrupt of any, it is tied directly to the government, Bush is taking money from the industry to push more construction, high oil prices play into this major energy conspiracy against the citizens of the world!
The point I am making is Nuclear technology is something that needs to be handled with great care. There is enormous power in that small atom. The technology in inexperienced or ill-advised hands can be disasterous. ( BTW, today - a technician got killed handling explosives in Pakistan nuclear facility )