Is there a good reason more nations should have Nuclear weapons?
- Thread starter EXman
- Start date
hehe, nice poll yes 
but thats the wrong question you are asking, should only a select few countries be allowed to have nukes?
but thats the wrong question you are asking, should only a select few countries be allowed to have nukes?
Nobody should have the bomb.
Esp. in the M.E.
However, Israel has the bomb so.. you can't play favorites. Now everyone is allowed a bomb.
Esp. in the M.E.
However, Israel has the bomb so.. you can't play favorites. Now everyone is allowed a bomb.
QFT!
Oops! Your reality check just bounced. As much as I don't want to see Isreal, or the U.S., or Russia, or anyone else with nukes, no nation who already has them has used them in war since the one and only time we used them in WW II. Reality requires some practical understanding about the down side allowing weird asshats like Iran and North Korea to acquire these weapons.
We may not succeed in stopping them, but we should do everything within our legal power to do so and do our best to work toward disarming the rest of the planet. In nuclear terms, OOPS! can be catastrophic.
Its the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction. If Iran had nukes, then Israel (or their US Puppets in the Whitehouse) wouldn't dare nuke them.
Ah, that works/worked well in days gone by, but, allow Iran, Syria, or the likes of al Quada to gain access to them and all bets are off. They can talk people into walking into or near a building loaded with explosives and detonate themselves because they will be awarded with 70 virgins (or whatever). The right radical gains access to nuclear warheads and watch the nukes fly! Israel already knows they are marked and the sad thing is, they are equipped to take most if not all of the middleast with them!
The only countries which have been close to going nuclear in the last 20 years are Pakistan and India.
Now, having said this, I also reallize that in the long run, nuclear non-proliferation is about as likely to succeed as the "war on drugs". Eventually, someone radical enough to use them will get them and the only hope can be that one single detonation will be enough to scare the world into not ever using them again. I doubt that though, the likely result will probably be the end of the world as we know it.
Israel shouldn?t have nukes for one reason:
They are not going to be able to hold their country forever.
Israel controls a piece of land which is holy to three religions. Look at the history of this piece of land. Christians once controlled it, Muslims, Jews, etc.
One day Muslims will reclaim it.
When this happens Israel will nuke them and it will change the world.
Jerusalem should belong to the UN, but the UN sucks and it is pretty much too late for that.
-
This is probably the big disaster all religions say is going to happen.
That is if you believe any of it.
They are not going to be able to hold their country forever.
Israel controls a piece of land which is holy to three religions. Look at the history of this piece of land. Christians once controlled it, Muslims, Jews, etc.
One day Muslims will reclaim it.
When this happens Israel will nuke them and it will change the world.
Jerusalem should belong to the UN, but the UN sucks and it is pretty much too late for that.
-
This is probably the big disaster all religions say is going to happen.
That is if you believe any of it.
I global politics, it would help if everyone had the bomb. And in the worst case, we jsut get what we deserve.
Unless by "us" you mean the whole world, then no. The fallout from 1 average nuclear detonation in Israel would also most likely kill a large portion in several other areas, most likely Egypt/Iraq depending upon wind speed/direction.
Can you imagine what a large scale detonation would do?
I wish I can.
in the perfect world all country should sign an agreement of not having nuke. But in the real world no one country will agree.
The only way nukes will ever be outlawed is if the 3 big powers, Russia, China, and the USA agree on it (which is nearly impossible). Until then you can't play favorites. IMHO nukes create stability only when everyone in the sand box has one, nobody is crazy enough to attack a counrty with nukes in their arsenal.
Actually, this has been done with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and that is why Iran and NK are at odds with the UN and world....The one fact remains though, you can not simply erase the knowledge or technology....
Unless someone in the sandbox is crazy. You do realize that if Iran wants to deliver a nuke to Israel, they don't need to send a missile, which will be immediately traced by Israeli air defense, and will be followed by a reply which will turn most of Iran into glass.
They just need to let a warhead "slip" through their fingers, and wind up in the hands of terrorists. Oops.
And after a terrorist act - who's going to find out where the bomb came from!
Especially if they enrich their own uranium - the characteristics of the final nuclear fuel will be unknown to the west, and thus its radioactive signature won't be positively identified.
Yeah, as long as the US stays strong, no one will dare to openly attack. But giving Iran's President a nuke, who says that Israel should be wiped off the map, would not be good.
Maybe we should just give Iran one of our Nukes (pointy end first). We have missles now with multiple warheads designed to be delivered in a spread pattern.
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
Every deposit in the world has it's own signature, no matter what you do it can still be traced.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter