April 25, 2006
"Iran's top national security official vowed on Tuesday that his country will "hide" its nuclear programme if attacked."
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1682991,001301970000.htm
2006-08-16 01:03:23 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment
It certainly is inconsistent to say that we (USA) had to use nuclear weapons on Japan, but that none of the non-traditional nuclear powers should have them.
Iran doesn't have to look very far, just across the borders with Iraq on west and with Afghanistan on the east to imagine being invaded by Bush & Co.
And that "Axis of Evil"? We only attacked the one without a well-developed nuclear program. Isn't North Korea really a bigger threat to its own people and to its region than post-Gulf War I Saddam was? But, oh, they have nukes. Better not invade, they might lob one into Seoul or Toyoko or Anchorage. So our choice of who to invade (even if really based on, "That man tried to kill my Daddy.") would lead a totalitarian leader to reasonably conclude he is better off developing nukes quickly.
That said, I think it is reasonable for the majority of countries which are non-nuclear (NZ, Costa Rica, Japan especially come to mind as non-nuke and non-militraristic) to apply pressure to keep others from joining the club.
I can't think of any country that has given up nukes under threat. South Africa and Belarus and Ukraine gave them up voluntarily and peacefully following indigenous regime changes..
2006-08-16 02:19:38 · answer #1 · answered by David in Kenai 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
From some of the answerer's comments, it looks like they believe the U.S. is the only country that has a problem with Iran acquiring nuclear power. Not so! The civilized world is against it! Get your heads out of your asses! Would you really want Iran (knowing what a crazy government they have) to tout their nuclear prowess? I have a good Iranian friend who thinks their new leader is nuts. What are some of us saying?
2006-08-16 11:09:44 · answer #2 · answered by Nani 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The UN and America can't prohibit anyone from doing anything, they can't find the weapons stores in a country the size of Connecticut, much less stop Iran from doing what it wants. Spend your wealth on livingry not weaponry...Buckminster Fuller, when everybody is an equal partner on this tiny island in space, we won't need to blow each other up! Spread the wealth around! Feed everybody! an Ipod in every ear!!!!
Peace Dude!
2006-08-22 22:25:53 · answer #3 · answered by Michael S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't trust Iran with nuclear power because they are a bunch of psychopathic looneys and who knows what they would do with the stuff.
Of course the US can't be trusted either considering that they have a track record of using nuclear weapons in warfare.
2006-08-22 05:05:32 · answer #4 · answered by uselessadvice 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no... cos the only reason itd use it as self defense wud be cos another country attacked (most prolly wid the same weapon they claim to have for defense)...u never know wat will happen... but then again... wid usa holdin the power to bomb any damn country its no wonder they want defensive reassurance... cos as u can see bush dun listen or care anyways... cud say one man wid a gun... he may shoot sumone he may not... but because of that anyother man gets a gun... to defend himself if sumthin happens... who do u trust in the end?? isnt it better if no one had guns in the first place... cos u may need it for self defense and **** but whos to say sum other guy further down the line of history who gains authority is a nutter... remember its not the weapons that matter but more the people... cos they change easily.. so why give them the power which they might jus misuse one day...
2006-08-16 08:13:40 · answer #5 · answered by damn 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
russia,india pakistan, israel have nukes around iran.
i read saddam was devious about clear wmd disclosure because he feared iran might topple him.
pakistan is supposed to have elections soon & if a fundamentslamist gov. moves in...?
i heard a guy on pbs tell a story about an afghani meeting of tribes after the russian invasion in the 80's. the afghan said to his fellow warlords, "first , we kill the russians, then we kill ourselves!"
once upon a time, the conflict was about horses,swords, holylands,oasises &$...the cradle of civilization. now its oil, nukes,oasises, holylands &$!
2006-08-22 17:05:14 · answer #6 · answered by enord 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would Iran need nuclear energy for "peaceful" purposes? They have oil, you know.
2006-08-16 08:33:30 · answer #7 · answered by helene_thygesen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
de so called self defence is more or less military use to put it crudely.. nuclear ceapons are under WMD and tend to be on the offensive side of arsenal..
2006-08-16 08:07:28 · answer #8 · answered by ThoughTs 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
2 points!
2006-08-22 20:01:59 · answer #9 · answered by JTB 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can't prohibit someone "to" something, you can only prohibit them "from" something.
Example:
"She was prohibited from entering the building," is correct, but "She was prohibited to enter the building," or worse, "he prohibited her to enter the building" are not correct.
Sound kind of dirty, though.
More commonly, "prohibited" is used as a passive verb:
"Drinking beer is prohibited in this building."
"Trespassers are prohibited."
2006-08-22 10:38:46 · answer #10 · answered by klb_72 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋