Like the majority of people.................?

Question

I believe that the world would be a far safer place without Nuclear weapons. However, as far as Im aware (being a Brit) the American Constitution states that people have the right to bear arms in order to defend themselves. With this in mind if the USA, Russia, UK, France and a few others are allowed to stock a nuclear arsenal, why do America and her allies feel the need to chastise Iran. Don't get me wrong I don't want the Iranians to have the capability either, but surely they have a right to defend themselves like everyone else. If not then America should be hassling the UK and France too.

Your sensible thoughts please?

I'm am please to see so many sensible points of view. Like I said I don't want them to have the capability either....the world is a big enough tinder box as it is. I just thought I'd see what a cross section of society thought. Thanks

Answer 1

I have often thought about this issue myself. I too am against nuclear weapons (and any other weapon that does not discriminate between armed forces and civillians). When we look at the aggressors in the World, the USA has dropped bombs on 22 countries since the end of World War II, These include: China 1945-46, 1950-53; Korea 1950-53; Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-69; Indonesia 1958; Cuba 1959-61; Congo 1964; Peru 1965; Laos 1964-73; Vietnam 1961-73; Cambodia 1969-70; Lebanon 1983-84; Grenada 1983; Libya 1986, El Salvador 1980s; Nicaragua 1980s; Panama 1989; Iraq 1991 to present day; Somalia 1993; Bosnia (Republic of Srpska) 1995; Sudan 1998; Yugoslavia 1999; and Afghanistan 1998, 2001-02.
I am more worried about which button Bush's finger is on, compared to that of the Iranian or North Korean leaders!

Answer 2

Most of the nuclear countries of the world today got it clandestinely.....just as the iranians are trying to do it now.

Without nuclear weapons there would be more warfare. A case can be made that nukes prevented world war 3 with the soviets, and have prevented other wars...for example notice how the arab nations no longer try to invade israel, nor do India and Pakistan talk much warfare these days.

Having nukes is a way of making sure your enemies dont attack your country. if Iraq had had nukes, the invasion never would have happened. So if you are Iran and you dont want to be invaded ...you rush to get you some nukes.
Of course if you are a country that wants to keep invasion of Iran as an option you fight like heck to make sure they dont get the capability.

Answer 3

sure regularly occurring is the imply uncomplicated of the final public, - RAS Intelligence skills and means at the instant are not incredibly regularly occurring, yet a minor minority of the full inhabitants. some estimate to at around 5 to 7 p.c.. it is a real minority is it no longer. think of the conventional male maximum appropriate the country - or something incredibly. staring on the soccer, swilling beer, swearing consistently because of the fact he does not understand the thank you to tension via gramma they say the conventional male has a usable vocabulary or 250 to 350 words, and the richness of expression comes from using profanity This teach a stunning flexibility of language... and a undemanding style of an more advantageous reasoning and a rudimentary intelligence yet incredibly could he run the country..... sure i'm greater desirable than happy the minority regulations the final public in spite of the incontrovertible fact that I could factor out that a minority consultant chosen via the final public to be chief is a in reality a majority chief, no longer a minority chief. you Yanks could be so illogical, perhaps its on the grounds which you lot in user-friendly terms had "4 fathers", you want greater genetic style, mixture the genes lads you would be greater effective for it interior the tip... Obama, (who i'd by no skill vote for, over coverage and direction) Has skills, air of secret and Intelligence... he's a mix of two races, (mow many folk ought to factor to in user-friendly terms 2 branches interior the genealogy) He has concentration, and became into elected via the final public for my section i'm genetically organic so a techniques as we are able to tell, decrease back to the year 760 advert, thats an outstanding way of asserting inbred. in spite of the incontrovertible fact that the girl that had my toddlers, had some English blood in her, sorry infants, I cherished her, love can get interior the way of genetic purity, however the hybrid viger you bought, could make you greater suitable the final public of individuals are of any such great style of blended races it is stunning you may single one out to be a minority. - - or is it in user-friendly terms a color on my own that makes a minority .

Answer 4

Russia, the U.K., France, and the U.S.A. aren't in the habit of saying, "We will drive this other country into the sea, destroy them utterly."

Iran is.

You seem to think there is an ultimate level of fairness.

Fairness is a child's concept of justice. There is no justice between nations. Like business, no one comes in and says, "You have too much, give some to him."

That would be silly. So, the U.S., France, Russia, and the U.K. look after their own interests, as does Iran. We may agree at times, but suggesting that the U.S. give up it's right to argue, politic, do business in a way to maximize it's own interests is silly, especially when arguing for us to "Play fair" with a government that had thousands of people cheering in the streets at the deaths of 3000 of our people on 9/11.

No, our tolerance for Iran getting a nuclear bomb is a little thin, I would think understandably.

They are free to try to defend themselves. We are free to see to it that they can't and remain vulnerable should they ever attack their neighbors like Iraq did.

Answer 5

The right to bear arms and the right to build nuclear weapons and threaten to take countries off the map are a little bit different. That's an innacurate extrapolation

Answer 6

I agree with you. The world will not be a safer place if Iran has nuclear weapons. But of course, the world will be a safer place if the US hasn't.

Answer 7

Iran continues to call for eradication of another soveriegn nation. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran attacked Israel as a ''tumor" that should be ''wiped off the map of the world" and asserted that the holocaust was a ''myth."

This rhetoric with the military power to destroy another state is dangerous.

Answer 8

Iran is the only nation with theocratic leadership, and them getting it means nuclear exchange is likely in the middle east (ie with israel) very dangerous. Just like pakistan getting them after india.

Answer 9

I understand your principle... but as you said "Don't get me wrong I don't want the Iranians to have the capability either". That's just the way it is... nobody wants Iran to have nukes, so we're going to keep pressuring them. It's not idealism, it's survival instinct.

Answer 10

i think what they are scared of is that the goverment over there is so unstable that they could start a war over any little dispute
as you see in the news and over the internet most of the problems come down to the black gold (oil) and religion

but i agree with you any country has the right to defend ones self