Why does Iran have less moral right to own nuclear weapons than Israel or Pakistan...?

Question

...or indeed the USA or the UK or France or China or India or Russia?

I'm less interested in strategic or geopolitical viewpoints, rather I'd like to hear the ethical justification.

Answer 1

Good question. As an American, I recognize the extreme hypocrisy of being the only country to ever have used nuclear weapons against another country (TWO of them, and unnecessarily- Japan was about to surrender). But then again, by America's own definition of terrorism, America itself is guilty of some of the worst terrorist acts to date. "Shock and Awe" was just a PR euphemism for state-sponsored terrorism. Our goal was to terrify the Iraqi citizens into a quick submission. How is this any different from what Bush denounces as terrorist activity?

The only difference is this illusion of Us vs. Them. For the Bush regime to accomplish it's own selfish objectives, the American people need to be convinced that the people we are killing are not us, and thus less human. Then it's ok to kill them, but when they kill us it is because they are monsters.

Answer 2

Because Iran acts reckless and has openly declared to wipe Israel off the map of the world, whether Ahmadinijad said it or not, but the strong Zionist propaganda machine translated it as such and now everyone believes it so. I know he said that Israel will be destroyed on its own like the Soviet Unions collapse but the Western media twisted his words.

Iran has every right to Nuclear weapons like Pakistan and Israel but since Pakistan does not threaten to Nuke Israel or the US, and Iran regulary says that they want to destroy the Big Satan USA, that the odds are against them.

Personally I hope Iran does make nukes because that will make the region more safe, look at Pakistan and India now, they cannot afford a serious war because they could destroy one another completely. MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction works, it worked for the USA and USSR and it will work for Iran and Israel. Israel knows it and wont be able to bully the Muslims anymore if Iran gets Nukes.

Answer 3

The ETHICAL justification is not there. Iran signed a treaty and is now breaking its word. Lying has never been moral or ethical. Now as to specifics:

The USA, France, China and Russia developed their nuclear weapons on their own before the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty came about. They then turned around and offered to help other nations develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes if those nations signed the treaty agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons.

Israel, India and Pakistan did not sign the treaty, got no help and went on to develop nuclear weapons on their own.

NONE of the above nations signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and then proceeded to break it. Their morality lays with not breaking their word.

Iran signed the treaty, took the help and is now trying to develop nuclear weapons. There is no morality in lying. That is why Iran has a less "moral" right to develop its own nuclear weapons. Had Iran not signed the treaty, like Israel, Pakistan or India, no one would be saying a word as there would be no lying and no violation of an international treaty.

Answer 4

it's a very complex issue and it stems from the Non-Proliferation treaty. The basic premise is that nuclear weapons do not make ANYONE safer. The mere fact that they exist is a bad thing. So most of the world ( with a few exceptions ) got together and agreed on this idea. Those countries that already had them agreed that they would slowly and as a group start to dismantle thier nuclear weapons. We can't get rid of them all at once because you know that one country won't do it and that would offset the balance of power in the world. We also agreed that we would not give nuclear weapons to anyone else or provide the technology to anyone else.

Second, the countries that don't have nukes agreed that they would not seek to obtain nukes or the technology to build them. It was agreed by all that this was in the best interest of peace.

The more nukes that we have out there, the greater the chance that someone uses one, or worse yet, that a bomb could fall into the hands of someone who would use it as a weapon of terrorism.

So it's not Iran specificaly, it's anyone. It's the proliferation of nuclear weapons that we want to prevent.

Answer 5

Very good question. There are two camps on the idea of nuclear proliferation. Kenneth Waltz (a neorealist political scientist) suggests that proliferation will actually decrease the likelihood of war because no rational person would attack a nuclear state. The other idea, which is more common, says the international community should curb proliferation.

The concern with Iran comes from both camps. The reasons for the second camp is obvious, and their position is that there should simply be no more nuclear states, period. The first camp still tends to argue against Iran because the extreme risk of weapons grade material ending up in terrorists hands.

Answer 6

Regardless of whether they use conventional or nuclear weapons, the fact that Israel would be forced to attack heavily populated areas due to the placement of Iranian nuclear facilities would create a humanitarian problem, especially given the vast anti-Israeli sentiment expressed worldwide. Should Israel not worry about such condemnation, they certainly would be capable of destroying such facilities with conventional weapons, though it would not be as easy at it was in 1982 in Iraq. Many of these facilities are heavily fortified and underground, so some equivalent of bunker buster ammunition would be necessary.

Answer 7

Iran signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty which Israel and Pakistan and India didn't. The big 5 nuke powers were exempted in this treaty. Thus north Korea and Iran are obligated by treaty not to develop nuclear weapons though they can develop nuclear power reactors for peaceful purposes that would be regulated by the UN.

Answer 8

Iran has not demonstrated the level of responsibility that those other countries have. For example, in the 90's Pakistan applied to the UN for permission to refine uranium. The UN granted them this because they have demonstrated a desire for peace and followed due process with the rest of the globe. Iran has rejected the UN's process of nuclear proliferation and therefore doesn't want to play by the rules. The fear is that Iran is attempting to gain a nuclear weapon with the intent of using it. Other countries like France, UK, and China have expressed no desire to actually us them.

Answer 9

My Justification. Well, I want to live.

Iran is not a stable country. It had a revolution in my life time, so the nukes could easily fall in to the wrong hands. That is why I am worried about Pakistan. I trust their leaders, but there are those who want to overthrow Mussarif. It is those extremist I am afraid of. The Nuke issue for most Americans is not about morality as much as self preservations. Iran don't like us.

Answer 10

What nations has Israel publically sworn it will "wipe off the face of the Earth forever"?

What nations has the U.S. publically declared it will "drive into the sea in a rain of fire and death"?

What opponent has France declared would "be incinerated as soon as we can accomplish it"?

Now, ask those same questions, only insert "Iran" in place of the other nations.

Pakistan and India have them because the other has them. The U.S., U.K., China, and Russia have them because the others do.

Iran, like so many other nations, signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty many years ago. So why should they need nukes? They're in a "nuclear-free zone", and pose no threat to anybody, right?

And if you believe that, I have some wonderful oceanfront property in Tehran I can sell you . . .