Which is worse: starting a war with Iran, or allowing iran to have nuclear weapons?

Question

This is a serious question - I'm curious of what people think.

Also, I guess it opens into a more general question on pre-emption. When, if ever, would you allow a nation to pre-emptively attack to prevent itself from being attacked? Seems like there will always be a risk that we create more problems rather than solving them. Yet after 9/11, many (most) people wanted to know why we didn't find out about and prevent the attack beforehand.

What do you think?

Answer 1

I believe it is John McCain's position that the only thing worse than a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran is a nuclear Iran.

I agree with him on this position, at least.

Answer 2

Iran as a country having nuclear weapons isn't the worry.

The issue is Iran providing nuclear weapons to the various terrorist organizations who they already provide equipment funding and training to.

This gives Iran the ability to attack other nations with deniability.

If Iran had a nuclear weapon that could be traced back to them then they wouldnt be a threat because they would never get the guts to use it. However the real threat is Iran giving a nuclear device to Hezbollah, or Al-Quaida, or any other bunch of morons who are willing to kill a large number of people simply to make a statement.

War with Iran is preferable to them having nuclear weapons. Some may think I am wrong, sadly I am not.

We should have invaded Iran straight up and bypassed Iraq. Iran has always been and will always be the real enemy. What is striking is that most people do not realize that.

Answer 3

This is a serious question. Hmmm..... I can't imagine trusting Iran with nukes, I know what they'll do: target Israel.

We all know what happened last time the US went on the pre-emptive defense. We must avoid those decisions in the future. I think if the UN determined that Iran had nukes and they had to be removed by force, the war would have to be declared by the UN against Iran with a strong coalition of nations backing up the US and any other nations seeking to enforce Iran's compliance with UN mandates.

Answer 4

Yes, I agree with ^^. I really don't know why so much countries are after nuclear weapons - we are putting ourselves in a greater risk with destruction. Instead of the increase of nuclear weapons, countries should be disarming them. As Albert Einstein said: "I know not of what weapons World War III will be fought with, but I do know World War IIII will be fought with sticks and stones".

As for your question, I don't think Iran has got the guts to send a nuclear bomb to America, the world's super-power. As above, they'll give it to terrorist organizations which will fight to the death for the ideology they "believe" in. Because, if Iran was brave enough to send a nuclear weapon to America, they'll be certain that Iran will be wiped off the map. That is the reason why countries refuse to use nuclear weapons. Because of restraint. Once one country uses a nuclear weapon, in a matter of minutes, the one who sent it will quickly be annihilated.

But instead of causing war, or "adding fuel to the fire", countries, especially that of America should give a bit of restraint - but by no means allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon of any sort. There is enough nuclear weapons as it is and for another country to gain one simply puts Humanity at a greater risk of extinction.

I believe starting a war with Iran, is in fact dangerous as well. This can go back to the Cold War I read about. Advisers of JFK advised him to invade Cuba and remove all the camps and missiles from there. But did he? No, he didn't. He put pressure onto Russia's leader at the time but also gave him a bit of space. It was that very decision why we are alive to talk about it. George Bush or any leader for that matter should follow JFK's footsteps and should be neither too strict or too lax.

Great question.

Answer 5

I think that if we allow Iran to produce nuclear weapons, then it's only a matter of time before we go to war with them. They've already said they would wipe Israel off the map and they will move in to take over Iraq when we pull out. I think many more people will die if we wait instead of wasting them now.

Answer 6

we could smash any nation in to the ground if they started a war,
so the chances are there not going to send a missle or nuke.
9/11 was not committed by a country, but yet a country fell.
would iran or korea really nuke anyone
they would be flat in a second.

safer without the war
at least are soldiers wont get killed and then more people wanting to kill us.

Answer 7

Letting Iran have nuclear weapons. Because if we were in a war we would beat them when they did not have nucs. But if they did have them they could destroy us.

Answer 8

I would sleep better knowing iran had nukes, than i do now , knowing an eejit, half wit is in charge of the last world super power.Thats a scots point of view

Answer 9

starting a war almost every country already has nuclear weopons so it wudnt make a difference, n nuclear weopons r never used, only as threats

Answer 10

We ought to send some nukes to Iran.