What is so dangerous about Iran having nuclear weapons? Why not give them a chance to do their evil?

Question

I mean why not let them have them, in fact why not let every country have them. But in the case of Iran. What can they really do that a country like the United States or Russia can't do to them 1,000 times over. Maybe you might consider me a heartless individual to say let them strike first if they really want to. But personally if me or my family were to be killed in an attack by Iran it wouldn't bother me because i'd know that the whole country would be destroyed. Personally i'm more concerned with Russia & what's left of their nukes from the soviet days. It's funny with all of these people out there that believe in God, yet you won't act like God does if he's real. God doesn't smite someone for doing something he thinks they might do, or because he knows they have the ability to do it. God doesn't keep someone from doing something that is evil. God makes you suffer for it later. Not saying that anyone should nuke anyone. This ? is aimed towards believers in God & why their stance is

Answer 1

Are you willing to lose 20 million American citizens just so you can self-righteously blow the Iranians off the map? Wouldn't it be better never to have to endure that pain for either side?

Answer 2

Well, I do think this way sometimes and don't think it makes you heartless. It is a rational statement and it appears to be a "cold topic". What I mean is Nuclear threat is greater to the world now than it has been in 25 years. I am an ex-military kid I grew up close to it. There are a good number of warhead UN accounted for. The doomsday clock need to be moved way up.
But, following your line of thinking on Iran, if we can prevent them then we save ourselves a lot of trouble and lives. If they get nukes they won't be able to get us Directly. They will do something that is much worse. We have a lot of land. The middle East and Europe don't. If Iran used them would nuke Israel. Israel is prepares for this, they will Nuke everyone in the Middle East and take them down with them. The fall out from this alone could displace large portions of Europe, and who ever is left in the Middle East will die without aid. Africa will become worse disease will consume the majority of the planet. This will displace such large numbers that it will begin to start friction wars. Maps will change and it would be a hundred or more years before people can go to the "Dead Lands". Climatically we are going through a pole shift and add a nuclear devastation to half of the planet and you have a good recipe for mass extinction. Of every type including us.

Answer 3

Iran's number one objective is the destruction of Israel. Israel is a protectorate under God's authority; thus, we cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons and still call ourselves a nation under God. Iran's second priority is conquest of the Middle East and the subjugation of all Middle Eastern nations under its authority and to a strict Islamic theocracy. As a freedom loving country who promoted democracy around the world we cannot allow this to happen. People everywhere have the right to freedom. Communistic and theocratic governments hate freedom because it interferes with controlling and manipulating people. The threat of a Western missile attack will not deter Iran---the corrupt leadership does not care how many lives it has to expend to make its point. It will just lie to the people like it did before and tell them that they are going to heaven if they die for Islam.

Answer 4

I believe you are referring in part to self assured destruction. This was the prevailing thought during the cold war. Rouge nations may use nuclear weapons without concern for their own people.
Read some of the comments from the president of Iran. The link below might be of some interest to you.

Answer 5

Well - let's see -
You are a level 1 'Yamster' - probably one of those counterfeit accounts (one who has many) - and obviously one who likes to stir the pot of dissension. . . so - all that being a probable 'given' - your statement - beginning with a totally non-religious opening premise, finds it's way to a religious belief topic? and on a Sunday? how interesting . . .

Re: 'allowing' Iran anything?

All shall be, as it needs to be - and - it's all about control. . .
the US, as usual, is attempting to exercise it's imagined dictatorial 'might', and self-perceived controlling abilities, way beyond it's geographical (and realistic) boundaries, and I'm very pleased to see the Iran leader giving the current politicians the proverbial 'finger'. . .'bout time someone, somewhere, stood up to the great 'eagle' that waddles like a turkey. . .

And responding to your quandary re: the 'god' thing?

That one is all about 'trust' and belief - that the 'faith' that one chooses to hold dear in their personal life is 'trustworthy' --- makes you wonder how much a professed believer really holds to their beliefs, in times like these? huh?

Answer 6

I understand what you are saying but an important point here. Iran says they are investing so to speak in nuclear power. That is a far cry from nuclear weapons. I think that we should offer our help in developing that power for the benefit of their ppl for humanity instead of accusing them of something that we aren't sure that they are doing. Anyway, who gave us the right to decide who has what in this world. And you are right, the christian right, which Bush believes to be his base isn't acting very God-like. They have no faith in their own claim that theirs is the correct "religion" and blessed by God or they wouldn't be doing the old, "do it to them before they do it to you" thing. Isn't God going to protect them from evil? Or ??????

Answer 7

You don't get it do you?!!? THEY DO NOT CARE WHO OR HOW MANY PEOPLE THEY KILL!!!! Come on wake up an smell the coffee!!! Slam a big book into you forehead to get your brain started. OK, lets say that there was this really mean bully on your block, and he liked nothing more then to beet the crap out of people because he likes to really hurt people and he does not really care how he does it. And lets say that there is this guy that is wanting to sell his pistol with lots of bullets. Would you want him to have that pistol?

Answer 8

Well your question is what is so dangerous about it... then you say why not let them do their evil. That's whats so dangerous about it, that they are more likely to use it than the US is. So you kinda answered your own question ;)

Personally I don't agree with telling one country its ok to have them because they are 'sensible' and telling another country they can't. It should be all or nothing.

Answer 9

Ah. But the fact is, no one wants to be the first to die. Unless you want to volunteer as a test subject or first casualty for a nuclear war, I suggest you stop sprouting nonsense and start opposing nuclear weapons... FOR ALL COUNTRIES.

Answer 10

have you not learned anything about the nuke we dropped on Japan? maybe you should take a look at it before you decide it is ok for a country who INTENDS to use it, to have that technology. responsibility, mental fortitude, and concsience are necessary for such a knowledge to be possesed.