Nuking Iran and N. Korea Bad!?

Question

Aside from the whole Iraq thing, I see a lot of questions of why we don't just nuke or attack these two countries. Aside from the fact that we would piss off either the entire M. East or China and Russia, can't people see that an attack on a foregin country on a "percieved" threat is a door that no one should open especially not the world's only super power. If we can do it, what's to stop others from doing the same using the same excuse. Being attacked first and retaliating sucks but outright World war for "percieved" threats would be much worst.

Answer 1

Everytime we stick our noses in other people's business we get ourselves into big trouble. Do we learn? No... Why? because the corporations need to make $$$ from our tax money.

Answer 2

The issue with either of those countries having nuclear capability is that they are not stable countries. N. Korea is run my a man who is widely thought of as being insane, not just eccentric, he needs mental help. Iran is not much better.

We should not have invaded Iraq, everyone knows that now, but we created a problem so now it is our responsibility to stick to it until we fix it.

N. Korea could get much more worldwide cooperation if they were to actually talk to other countries and work with them. Look at S. Korea, they have one of the best economies in the region. I think that is what N. Korea wants as well.

Iran is a different story, they want Isreal off the map, and I believe they have ideas of spreading a greater amount of influence in the region. With these two countries nuclear capable what is to prevent them from offering a weapon to a terrorist group who sees things from their same perspective or similar anyway and having someone become the ultimate suicide bomber.

We have much to lose by them having these capabilities, thus we offer them incentives to not develop this technology. It really benefits no one.

Thus far we are the only country to use the atom in war. The more that are out there the more likely they are to be used at some point. In case you aren't aware the U.S. and Russia have been disarming their nuclear arsenals for years becuase it is expensive and leads to nowhere.

Answer 3

Yes very bad. Both countries are not very large and the fallout would kill people in countries all around the borders. It is best to try to talk to them first and when all fails then light up their world with non-nukes. Did you know that just in the USA alone we have enough bombs to blow up each person in the world one at a time. Hand them the bomb and let them drop it on their toe? With this much explosives laying around and the chance to test our game of chess why not just kill the people we want dead? We need this type of testing and it allows us to test some of our high tech toys and keep it hidden behind the blast of the bombs.

Remember Iran thought they were seeing UFO's? I wonder what those were? Pretty common stuff to us but something from outer space to them. So no need for Nukes. If you remember the Iraq army thought we were going to eat them for food and was waving white flags and begging not to be eaten. The people of the Middle East and many other places in the world are 100 to 200 years behind us.

Nukes are not good for the good old planet Earth and are in no way needed. How many hours to you think it would take to make both countries defenseless? Maybe the first 8 hours and the main fight would be gone. So maybe it would be best to just drop 1000-pound bombs on every thing and leave them to clean up the mess. Would take them 100 years to build back up and then they would be a little more watchful of their actions.

Answer 4

North Korea merits all of the undesirable press. a million. Warmongering 2. no longer prepared to barter 3. no longer looking after it truly is human beings (to the factor of starvation). Iran is a actual gray section and not truly uncomplicated. a million. no longer warmongering, yet actively looking out for its hobbies. sometimes, the place it truly is hobbies are the comparable because of the fact the U. S. working with the u . s . a . (i.e. vs. Taliban or Saddam) yet then as quickly because it includes opposite hobbies it works in it truly is very own choose (even if if that's no longer the interest of the U. S.). i.e. installation a Shia government in Iraq. helping Hezbullah in lebanon. 2. prepared to barter - yet the two Iran and the U. S. are caught in a chilly conflict hate mentality from the Seventies. 3. lots of undesirable blood between US and Iran: CIA kicked out Iran's democratic government interior the 50s in replace for a absolute monarchy. in the process the Nineteen Eighties u . s . a . armed Saddam with thousands and thousands of $ of weapons ensuing interior the dying of 500,000 Iranians - by using chemical conflict and wide-spread potential. that would clarify a splash the "dying to u . s . of america chanting". 4. tries to shield it truly is very own human beings - at the same time because it has an prolonged thank you to flow till it reaches the point of human rights and freedoms that we interior the west take with none attention, human beings can commute, say what they pick, and for the better section do what they pick. the comparable won't be in a position to be mentioned for many different international locations. I recommend you look at Newsweek mag this week - they have a particular record on "the actual iran".

Answer 5

nuking should never be done b/c we want to have a big mix of people from all cultures and who knows people in those countries could have a cure for cancer or aids.

Answer 6

Wonderful idea if you get all civilians evacuated. But that's impossibe.

Answer 7

if america and britain have nukes why cant iran and N. Korea?

Answer 8

Can we send you to one of those places first?

Answer 9

i say pull the trigger and let the chips fall where they may