why its is wrong for iran to have nuclear weapons while others like india, pakistan and israel can have?

Question

who ever can answer will get best answer :)

Answer 1

A former government of Iran signed a UN treaty that they would honor the ban on the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Now I believe that any time a government has a revolution, they ought to have the right to throw out 100% of the treaties that were signed by the former administration, and renegotiate what they want since now they are like a whole new country. But that is not the way the world works. A nation signs a treaty, and the world expects THAT NATION to honor the treaty, irrespective of who is in charge.

But there's no penalties for violating the treaty ... India and Pakistan also signed the treaty, and both violated it, and here we are with them now saying they will honor it, after they have the nukes.

The USA came up with a quaint notion during the Iran Contra scandal, of saying the treaties signed by the USA may be violated if no one catches us doing it ... this was the justification for bombing harbors in South America where European ships got damaged.

Well lots of other nations are now copying that US principle ... if no one catches us at it, we can do anything.

So Pakistan supplied nukes to Libya, secretly.

Not all nations signed the UN non-proliferation treaty, which basically says that we want to limit the spread of nuclear weapons.

This is based on A THEORY that the more nations that have them, the greater the risk fo an accident, or irresponsible behavior with them.

That is a dominant theory. Another theory is that we have had a lot of peace in the world since WW II, because very few nations want to attack some other nation that has WMD.

Of course that does not stop suicide bombers from constantly attacking Israel, or terrorist attacks in USA and Europe. It is pretty impossible to swat a fly with a WMD when you have no idea where they fly home nest is.

Now both India and Pakistan have attacked each other, after both got WMD, but there has been an effect there similar to WMD of WW I (nerve gas, biological weapons etc.) not being used in WW II ... the two nations seem to agree to have a war in which they not use WMD ... in WW II the Allies told the Axis ... if you use chemical & biological WMD against us, we will use against you & the Axis believed them ... at that point nukes were a secret both sides scrambling to develop. In fact, other than tne nukes on Japan, the only WMD in WW II was an accident in Italy, when the US was unloading the stuff & the harbor got bombed by the Germans, who had no idea that one of the ships in the harbor was loaded with WMD.

Answer 2

Iran shouldn't have nuclear capabilities period, because they bankroll and ideologically support what we (U.S. & powers that be) describe as terrorism. It would be extremely easy to ship in a small nuclear device under the 100's of klashnikovs to Hezbollah or HAMAS. Iran is more prone than Pakistan or India to do such things. Pakistan and India are both allies, Iran is definitely not.

Answer 3

Nuclear is severe-high quality for the creation of electric powered potential. yet pondering the shown fact that the vast majority of electric powered energy interior the U. S. is produced by way of coal burning energy stations. Coal mined suitable authentic right here interior the U. S.. I omit out on how Al Gore has any effect on nuclear energy vegetation. If some ingredient this is the very stable coal lobby this is blockading advancements of nuclear energy. maximum government have stated that wind and solar could offset rather the electrical powered demands of the U. S. whether completely substitute the present coal burning energy vegetation? no longer with the present technology or the present electric powered grid ideas-set interior the U. S.. And to wind up 'potential independent' way we get off our worldwide dependency on oil (approximately 60% of our use of oil merchandise is thru imported oil). Oil used for the creation of gas. Nuclear ought to play no function in that regard in any understand.

Answer 4

the good will-ed people including "us" here on answers wish to promote peace and not armaments around the world. by exposing views such as yours in a question format it does not help the cause of peace. why a country run by a president who denies
historical facts and wants to wipe off the map another country some 2000 yrs. old civilization is beyond comprehension and logic. that is why we do not want lunatics...to get hold of nuclear weapons and make part of this civilization disappear in seconds....please....as suggested by one President you either are with us....or against us there is not other way. hope you are with us.

Answer 5

SUPPOSEDLY- because those countries know how to handle them, & Iran doesn't. And if YOU believe that it's "safe" for Pakistan to have Nuclear Weapons, -I have a piece of the Golden Gate Bridge I can sell you at DISCOUNT prices! :)

Answer 6

There is nothing wrong with Iran having nuclear weapons....There was nothing wring with Iraq having Nuclear Weapons....

There should peace across the World...

I agree with s t...

Answer 7

Those countries are not oil rich so we will leave them alone. We will even sell them some weapons just for good will and they can eventually use them against us.

Answer 8

would you feel better knowing that a country that hangs gays lesbians has the bombs they have a missile that could hit a military base. now if we ignore them they wont go away there in our face for life give them time they will develop the bomb and use it

Answer 9

yes they should have them every one should have them udont when usa is going to attak and invade