Why does the US forbid Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

[JTsyo]

I haven't seen this mentioned yet. It would spark a nuclear arms race in the middle east. Currently only Israel has nukes there but if Iran got nukes, their rivals, SA and Iraq would feel the need to be armed too. With the instability in the area, nukes being available in quantity would lead to the obvious bad things. Even in Pakistan, they are scared for their nukes and have taken steps to secure them.

 

[soulcougher73]

Well when a leader of a country says publically that he wants to nuke certain people/countries. Its probably a good idea to not let them have any. Any of those other countries leaders say that publically that have nukes?

 

[Newell Steamer]

Because Israel said so.

And Israel's justification is that Iran has been calling for the destruction of Israel. And, now that I think of it,.. many other nations have called for the destruction of America (nations that already have nuclear weapons),.. and yet nothing has happened. So, the saber rattles don't have much merit. I've said this before: you just don't launch a nuke and call it day - this isn't WW2, where one side had a powerful weapon. World leaders with nuclear capabilities know this and plan/rule/lead accordingly.

Now, the truth of the matter is that Iran is heavily involved in funding terrorists. And, Israel feels that when the 1st nuclear bomb comes rolling off the assembly line, Iran will hand it over to the terrorists that head off into Palestine to attack and kill Israelis. Or, launch and blame the terrorists.

The reality is that no one is THAT crazy. No matter how Byzantine-esque a nuclear strike on Israel from Iran is, Iran wouldn't be able to cover it's tracks, nor escape retaliation.

Nonetheless, Israel has taken a stance that is pretty antagonistic:
- blocking all attempts by Iran to even obtain nuclear energy
- assassinating Iran's scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations)

And, it is to accomplish one thing; wipe out the Palestinians. In order to do that, they want to cut off any potential attempts by Iran to give the terrorists anything that gives them an edge, since it will benefit the Palestinians.

Israel has had a very aggressive stance against the Palestinians from day one. Israel's strategy is detailed and 'exposed' by Miko Peled; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miko_Peled & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtQKr6f_Uwk

So, in Israel's view:
1) The Palestinian lands are theirs, not ifs, ands or buts. Israel never wanted peace and coexistence. The latter was recently revealed.
2) Anything that can support or strengthen the Palestinians must be destroyed - ASAP. Which is why Iran is getting it's scientists killed, cornered by UN sanctions and a stern 'fuck off' from America's conservative leaders.

 

[ivwshane]

Well I've been told that the only way to stop a bad guy with nukes is with a good guy with nukes.

 

[OutHouse]

enemy? oh man...stop it, please

are you stupid or something?

 

[SMOGZINN]

For exactly the same reason we don't let children play with guns. We don't trust them to be responsibility with them, and we are big enough to tell them NO!

 

[cubby1223]

The reality is that no one is THAT crazy. No matter how Byzantine-esque a nuclear strike on Israel from Iran is, Iran wouldn't be able to cover it's tracks, nor escape retaliation.

You are humanizing an entity that is not human. And you are giving that entity some of the better qualities of humans.

It's like saying no one would ever be crazy enough to enter a military base and open fire with a rifle because of retaliation. Yet, humans have done such things.

We also have a plethora of individuals willing to be suicide bombers in the region. They obviously don't worry about retaliation.

With a nuclear Iran, you also worry about a group unaffiliated with any state obtaining one and you don't have a source to retaliate against. It's easy to go after an official conventional military because you have defined targets. It's not easy to target individuals free to roam wherever they choose, not bound to living within a certain region.

And, seriously, *if* Iran or another group used a nuclear weapon, at that point any and all retaliation will for sure be assumed to cause more nuclear weapons to be used. There is no victory, there is no win. There is only death and more death.

 

[Newell Steamer]

You are humanizing an entity that is not human. And you are giving that entity some of the better qualities of humans.

It's like saying no one would ever be crazy enough to enter a military base and open fire with a rifle because of retaliation. Yet, humans have done such things.

We also have a plethora of individuals willing to be suicide bombers in the region. They obviously don't worry about retaliation.

With a nuclear Iran, you don't necessarily worry about Iran conducting an official military strike, more you worry about a group unaffiliated with any state obtaining one and you don't have a source to retaliate against.

And, seriously, *if* Iran or another group used a nuclear weapon on offense, at that point any and all retaliation will for sure be assumed to cause more nuclear weapons to be used. There is no victory, there is no win. There is only death and more death.

Your example is nothing like or similar to a nuclear strike. You are taking a desperate tactic, from a small percentage of extremist maniacs, and scaling it up considerably.

On top of it, you have deemed Iranians as sub-human.

There isn't much of anything to further discuss with you.

The sad part; you think you are better than millions of human beings you know nothing about, but the reality is that you are far worse than they can ever be.

 

[cubby1223]

Your example is nothing like or similar to a nuclear strike. You are taking a desperate tactic, from a small percentage of extremist maniacs, and scaling it up considerably.

On top of it, you have deemed Iranians as sub-human.

There isn't much of anything to further discuss with you.

The sad part; you think you are better than millions of human beings you know nothing about, but the reality is that you are far worse than they can ever be.

Hi, troll with sub-par comprehension skills! I said a country is not a human. The people within the country are. But the country as a whole cannot be definitively defined by characteristics of an individual human, a country is thousands or in this case millions of individuals, some acting in unison, some acting in their own self-interest against the interests of the other individuals. Nice having a conversation with you Be well.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well when a leader of a country says publically that he wants to nuke certain people/countries. Its probably a good idea to not let them have any. Any of those other countries leaders say that publically that have nukes?

How can you actually believe that? Iran has never said that they intend to nuke anybody.

 

[Hugo Drax]

After all, the US, Russia, China, Israel, Pakistan, France, England, etc., etc, have nuclear weapons. How can any nations forbid Iran having nuclear weapons unless all nations disarm?
Is it hypocrisy? Or is there legal justification?

Because the jews.

 

[frowertr]

You people who think Iran isn't our enemy are truly diluted. Wish you'd move over there and stop breathing my American air.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Of course it is hypocrisy. We should disarm. the concept of war and human against human violence is the enemy.

 

[Atreus21]

You people who think Iran isn't our enemy are truly diluted. Wish you'd move over there and stop breathing my American air.

Frankly, I think they're way the hell too concentrated.

 

[norseamd]

I haven't seen this mentioned yet. It would spark a nuclear arms race in the middle east. Currently only Israel has nukes there but if Iran got nukes, their rivals, SA and Iraq would feel the need to be armed too. With the instability in the area, nukes being available in quantity would lead to the obvious bad things. Even in Pakistan, they are scared for their nukes and have taken steps to secure them.

FTFY. This is true. However SA already has a deal with Pakistan where the Pakistanis will give SA nuclear weapons if they want them. Yes this is for real.

 

[norseamd]

Wish you'd move over there and stop breathing my American air.

So then what are your thoughts about the Ukrainian conflict and possible American support or protection of the European countries?

 

[soccerballtux]

maybe because President Ahmadinejad regularly runs around spouting anti-zionist rhestoric saying they want to wipe them off the face of the map? That sort of silliness is simply not allowed if you want nuclear weaponry.

 

[Black Octagon]

Because the U.S. is a hegemon that feels entitled to dictate terms to non-hegemons.

Because Israel is an American ally (and happens to have a hugely powerful lobby in the U.S.) which does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Because ever since the Shah of Iran (a U.S.-planted puppet) lost rule to Khomeini, the U.S. no longer could control (or "trust") the Iranian government and knows perfectly well that there are legitimate anti-U.S. grievances in the country.

In short, because of a particular view on what American "security" requires.

 

[raildogg]

are you stupid or something?

Be nice. Do you know this guy? Why such hostility?

 

[nickqt]

Hi, troll with sub-par comprehension skills! I said a country is not a human. The people within the country are. But the country as a whole cannot be definitively defined by characteristics of an individual human, a country is thousands or in this case millions of individuals, some acting in unison, some acting in their own self-interest against the interests of the other individuals. Nice having a conversation with you Be well.

So by that logic, no country should have nukes. I agree!

You people who think Iran isn't our enemy are truly diluted. Wish you'd move over there and stop breathing my American air.

I wish the people who believe whatever scary boogieman story big gub'mint tells them to believe in would stop believing in those boogieman stories.

maybe because President Ahmadinejad regularly runs around spouting anti-zionist rhestoric saying they want to wipe them off the face of the map? That sort of silliness is simply not allowed if you want nuclear weaponry.

The President of Iran is Ahmadinejad? You might want to inform the Iranians!

Yeah. All of our friendly nations chant " Death To America " during political speeches by their leaders which go along with it...

Or labeling them as a member of a fictitious "Axis of Evil"? But that's OK. Because Murrica.

Perhaps if the US had not overthrown their democratically elected PM in 1953 and installed a brutal dictator, they wouldn't be our "enemy" today. So, if they are our enemy who we label as "evil" when we screwed with them first and started all of this, why would their bluster about "death to great satan" be any more toxic?

They shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons because they have fanatical beliefs for the most part as a country and they are being lead by a dictator that is crazy enough to use them for political and religious reasons.

Agreed. Perhaps if both the US and Iranian governments began acting rational towards each other, a detente, then we could help ensure that they don't develop nuclear weapons, while retaining the ability to have nuclear power.

Or we can continue labeling them as evil, cause the boogieman is comin' for ya, be very, very scared.

Also: mushroom clouds over American cities. And fear. Plus, boogieman.

 

[raildogg]

We are just repeating stuff we've been told by the media or someone else.

How do you call an entire nation your "enemy?" That is so weird. And how do you wrap yourself up in the American flag? I guess your fear of being alone makes you patriotic. Being part of something bigger gives you comfort.

This is a strange world we live in.

Remember: when you are born, who have no idea who you are. It's ONLY because your parents, your society and others have drilled information into you that you have become what you are and believe what you do. When you were born, you had no idea what Iran was, let alone calling them your enemy. When the Iranian baby was born, he also had no idea about America. Only after his parents and his society drilled information into him that he started chanting "Death to America."

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Most other countries don't have a problem with Iran.

Riiiight.

Plenty of countries have problems with Iran. They export terrorism all over the globe.

And you've heard of the UN sanctions, right?

Fern

 

[raildogg]

Riiiight.

Plenty of countries have problems with Iran. They export terrorism all over the globe.

And you've heard of the UN sanctions, right?

Fern

They are not even close to the trouble makers the Western countries, especially the US, are.

 

[Fern]

They are not even close to the trouble makers the Western countries, especially the US, are.

BS

Just go to Wiki or our State Dept site and look at all the terrorism Iran has been involved. They have not been contained to the ME either.

Fern

 

[norseamd]

On top of it, you have deemed Iranians as sub-human.

There isn't much of anything to further discuss with you.

This.