We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Why iran must not have nukes?
| 204 | 20876 |
- 204 Replies
...because they are all religious fanatics and terrorists.
*cough* STEREOTYPE *cough* RACIST *cough*
Are you even being serious? Just because a few thousand people are idiotic terrorists, doesn't mean the entire middle east population is the same. Please direct yourself here
ahamajellybad
Another stereotypical and racist comment.
Or are all middle eastern people nuts and ready to die in a jihad against the christian west?
Seriously, how racist can you get?
Because I dont think western countries can be trusted with nukes any more than Iran or any other eastern countries for that matter. The general opinion from the west is that if the middle east had nukes, we would all be dead, because they are all religious fanatics and terrorists.
This is the third time I have stated. Look at the state of Cold War for half a century and you will have your proof that nuclear deterrence works. Drummed in yet? Let me be more explicit. Did the Soviets or Americans fire a single nuke during the Cold War? No. Because they had thousands of them aimed at each other, which would result in MAD.
Its obvious from your tone (lol, internetz haz tonez) that you are facepalming and tired of hearing the opposite view. I respect you too much to allow you to get away with this :P
Actually if you read my expressions of exasperation, you would see that I was signing at the general lack of basic historical knowledge.
Or if he does have nukes and we also have nukes, then isn't it equal and neither uses nukes because of the fear of retaliation. Or are all middle eastern people nuts and ready to die in a jihad against the christian west?
Are you saying Jellybad wouldnt care that his country would be bombed into oblivion?
Don't put words in my mouth. We have stated time and time again how Iran is simply unstable as a political entity, citing various examples as the 2008 youth revolutions. The West on the other hand has proven itself above this level of political quagmire. Tell me, would you trust a nuke in the hands of such an unstable country?
The West on the other hand has proven itself above this level of political quagmire
No we have not. We can just keep it under wraps much better.
The problem is, your lookin at history from the top. Im looking at the underbelly. We are waaaay worse than jellybad in many ways.
Seriously, how racist can you get?
Im not racist, Im joking and slightly sarcastic at the same time.
Don't put words in my mouth.
I didnt, it was a weighted question.
No we have not. We can just keep it under wraps much better.
The problem is, your lookin at history from the top. Im looking at the underbelly. We are waaaay worse than jellybad in many ways.
This is a description of what happened in Iran in 2009 after the elections:
On 15 June, Mousavi rallied, with anywhere from hundreds of thousands to three million, of his supporters in Tehran, despite being warned by state officials that any such rally would be illegal.
Now look at the scale of the protests. Either the West does a really good job of covering up such instability or it simply doesn't have unrest on that scale.
Name me ways in which we are worse. Go on. Start with human rights maybe. Then move on to democracy. Oh, and how about economical stability?
Seeing you have no reply to my Cold War point, I take it you see validity in nuclear deterrence.
Also, I beg to differ. Looking at history from it's underbelly is not what you are doing; what you are doing are throwing out claims on how the Western governments cover up and scheme well without actually giving evidence.
Seeing you have no reply to my Cold War point, I take it you see validity in nuclear deterrence.
Thats putting words in my mouth. Just because I dont reply to every point doesnt mean I agree.
what you are doing are throwing out claims on how the Western governments cover up and scheme well without actually giving evidence.
Go read some proper history. Start with Noam Chomsky, he has important things to say regarding the cold war, vietnal, cuba and current issues.
I didnt say they are more or less stable than us. I said we are not really any more stable then them and cannot claim the moral high ground of "we have nukes for a deterent". Sadly millions around the world think their own governments have the only moral right to such power.
Nukes are bad, get rid of them. When we can turn around and say "we have no nukes, so neither can you" then I might actually support any politician or government.
Thats putting words in my mouth. Just because I dont reply to every point doesnt mean I agree.
Insinuated.
I didnt say they are more or less stable than us. I said we are not really any more stable then them and cannot claim the moral high ground of "we have nukes for a deterent".
We are much more stable than Iran. If you are going to blatantly ignore the 2009 Iranian Revolution as just a minor fluke then I have nothing to say. You don't see that scale of protests in the United States.
Now, let us carefully analyse the issues at hand. We can split it into two:
A) Nuclear Deterrence as a whole
B) Whether the West is trustworthy to handle Nukes.
Nukes are bad, get rid of them. When we can turn around and say "we have no nukes, so neither can you" then I might actually support any politician or government.
Governments have been trying to do this for decades, Reagan, Gorbachev, Bush, Khrushchev, all to no avail. They're decreasing in numbers already, but it's not possible to suddenly dismantle all of them.
Sadly millions around the world think their own governments have the only moral right to such power.
Possessing nukes is not a moral issue. Using nukes is also not a moral issue. Having the conditions to possess them is also not based on moral ground, but practical reasons; of which stability ranks amongst the first.
Go read some proper history. Start with Noam Chomsky, he has important things to say regarding the cold war, vietnal, cuba and current issues.
Care to list what ''important'' things he has said that would be related here?
Insinuated.
:P
You don't see that scale of protests in the United States.
That can be taken in two ways. Cant would be more apt. Of all countries, USA should be protesting the most, but the majority of the population is blindly patriotic and looks to the media to explain the world outside, asks for evidence to their own wrong doing and then blindly accepts when they are shown by professional "reporters" that other countries need policing because they are the ones doing wrong.
Governments have been trying to do this for decades, Reagan, Gorbachev, Bush, Khrushchev, all to no avail. They're decreasing in numbers already, but it's not possible to suddenly dismantle all of them.
You mean some of the people with the power to nuke countries?
Call me a skeptic (really, do!) but I somehow dont buy that.
Care to list what ''important'' things he has said that would be related here?
No, I expect you to look for yourself. Im not looking to win, nor do I want brownie points. If you want to understand how the world really works and has worked for a long time, he is a good place to start.
Possessing nukes is not a moral issue.
I strongly disagree.
That can be taken in two ways. Cant would be more apt. Of all countries, USA should be protesting the most, but the majority of the population is blindly patriotic and looks to the media to explain the world outside, asks for evidence to their own wrong doing and then blindly accepts when they are shown by professional "reporters" that other countries need policing because they are the ones doing wrong.
And why would they be protesting most? Understandably the economy has left many poor and without jobs, but comparatively your living standards are way on top. Also, many protests worldwide are for democratic rule, which would not be the case in AMerica.
Also, evidence that the media is twisting facts. Or that most are patriotic to the core. If not, don't generalize.
You mean some of the people with the power to nuke countries?
Call me a skeptic (really, do!) but I somehow dont buy that.
You are. I'm going to list just some of the treaties aimed at reducing nukes:
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
SALT Talks
INF Treaty
START Treaty
No, I expect you to look for yourself. Im not looking to win, nor do I want brownie points. If you want to understand how the world really works and has worked for a long time, he is a good place to start.
Then don't expect me to buy your argument; the onus is on you to argue for your point.
I strongly disagree.
A Head of State might be morally upright, yet has a destabilized government and country flooded with insurgents.
Well America thought it was needed and for them it was faster then clearing all the small isles in the Sea which belong to Japan and then start to destroy the whole japanese mainland. It isn't better and they shouldn't have used a nuke but a less, non-nuclear bomb.
and still they aint ashamed of calling other people terrorists
and still they aint ashamed of calling other people terrorists
Do you not think that groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not terrorists?
Well America thought it was needed and for them it was faster then clearing all the small isles in the Sea which belong to Japan and then start to destroy the whole japanese mainland.
1) Both the Nuclear bombs put together did far less than all the other bombs dropped in the war.
2) America issued a warning saying if the Japanese did not cease their actions they would use it.
3) After the first time, America AGAIN issued a warning saying if they continued they would use another.
4) It was a war, not peace time.
5) Japan attacked America first if you will remember.
No i dont think Taliban are terrorists bur Al quaida sure is terrorist.
Peace or war nothing justifies killing 250000 in blink of an eye.
I will prefer to b a taliban fighting against army than to b the pilot of a bomber who is about to drop a nuke on a city.
Peace or war nothing justifies killing 250000 in blink of an eye.
Again, let's go to the multiple point system.
1) It was 2 seperate bombs, not one, so it wasn't "A blink of an eye" for the total amount
2) The total casulties in WW2 ranged from 50-70 million people. 250,000, while large, pales in comparison.
3) If the bombs were not dropped, who knows how long the island hopping war would have lasted. Russia certainly wasn't going to lend a hand to the U.S against Japan, considering they were still mopping up in Europe and were running out of supplies and had sustained the most casulties by far on the eastern front. The war could have dragged on far longer and caused more deaths than just 250,000. Not even those were necessary if Japan had surrendered when given the chance the first or second time.
No i dont think Taliban are terrorists
They were responsible for 911...
Anyway I completely disagree with nukes for obvious reasons such as they can destroy millions of lives in a second and people are still suffering from radiation sickness from the attack on Hiroshima and nukes are far more destructive than they were sixty years ago. No country should have nuclear arms, end of.
You must be logged in to post a reply!