Nuclear weapons

[Rukas]

This is based on the President Ahmadinejad thread, but I wanted to put it in a separate discussion.

What would you rather see? Iran, in the current real world climate, equipped with a nuclear weapon, or the United States being the only power to have a nuke (which is what I am sure Bush would love to see happen)?

What is more dangerous? Iran joining the Nuclear club amongst a collection of nuclear empowered nations as a deterrent, and in fact serving as a deterrent against the use of Nuclear force by the United States of America, or the US being the only nuclear empowered nation and thus taking the weapons out of the hands of possible terrorist organizations and states?

 

[Jurhum]

I'd rather see no country with nuclear weapons. But since that's impossible. I'd rather see Iran as a nuclear super power to equal balance the Wests dominance. Having only a few countries with nuclear capabilities is not really good. It's similar to a dictator having all power in his country. But, if there is check and balance one country will think twice before invading another. If Iraq had nuclear weapons, i bet you the US would've thought a million times before invading int 01.

 

[ARon]

My decision was based on this. Those who want more power do things to get it. Those with power do things to keep it. I'd rather see the U.S keep it's power by not letting other countries acquire nuclear weapons, then see Iran gain the ability to use them, then maybe go on to use it to show its power. The same could be said about the U.S using one to show its dominance, but I think those trying to gain power are more eager to use what they have.

 

[AmerikazMost]

Anyone who says Iran should have nuclear weapons deserves a nuke to the brain.

Unstable governments (whether politically unstable or psychologically unstable) should not have their hands on nuclear weapons, or any other WMD's. Those are the countries who start abusing their power like Saddam did. Not to mention the risk of losing one of these weapons to an extremist group, whether purposely or accidentally. If Russia can't keep their shit straight, how can we expect Iran to?

If it were a question of whether Iran should have nukes too, or no one but Israel should have a nuke, then I'd say the more nukes the merrier. But America is a legitimate, stable, democratic nation. Think about that for a second.

Liberal democracy, which is what the United States is, is inherently an accountability mechanism. The government and government officials are accountable to the people because the people put them or keep them from office. Politicians' number one goal is to get and stay elected. With that being said, in this day and age, the cost of going to war is too high. Advanced liberal democracies prefer to use diplomacy to solve problems, because usually economics are placed on the highest pedestal (because that's usually what the PEOPLE care most about). That's why a liberal democracy has never gone to war with another liberal democracy--diplomacy works between them.

Anyway, back to the main issue. If America was the only country in the world with nukes, it would probably never use them. The people wouldn't approve of it, and their would be consequences for it, whether by domestic action or international economic repercussions. We'd be able to kick any other country's ass without them anyway, so why bother (We can take countries out, rebuilding them is another question).

When countries like Iran get weapons, however, those governments will not have many negative consequences to using them. That's what's scary.

 

[Sebastian]

I think iran should have nuclear weapons so the us cant invade them too.

 

[AmerikazMost]

I think iran should have nuclear weapons so the us cant invade them too.

U.S. is not going to invade Iran unless Iran provokes it. The Iraq mess is a product of an administration that's on its way out.

 

[Jokerman]

I'd rather see Iran being the only power to have a nuke.

 

[musolini]

first of the US ain't even a true democracy, and the freedom of speech is a joke, don't make me laugh. and nobody should have nukes. but since the US has them, im for iran and the rest of the world having them too. if you seriously think iran would use nukes first then you must be retarded. only way i see iran using nukes is if they would get attacked by the US first, besides they'd most probably retaliate on israel. so the US would still be pretty safe.

 

[AmerikazMost]

first of the US ain't even a true democracy, and the freedom of speech is a joke, don't make me laugh. and nobody should have nukes. but since the US has them, im for iran and the rest of the world having them too. if you seriously think iran would use nukes first then you must be retarded. only way i see iran using nukes is if they would get attacked by the US first, besides they'd most probably retaliate on israel. so the US would still be pretty safe.

There's no such thing as a true democracy. The closest government to it was the ancient Greeks, and it's practically impossible in the modern world.

Is the United States a liberal democracy? Yes. The statement you made to the contrary citing freedom of speech is uninformed and asinine. If you want to see real problems with freedom of speech, go to China or Iran.

If Iran had nukes, it'd be unlikely that they initiated an attack with them. Would they hesitate to use them in an ongoing conflict with another country if it came down to it? I doubt they would think twice.

And that's not even the most serious problem. Not to say for certain that they would distribute the technology to extremist groups, but who could be confident that they wouldn't? Unstable governments should not have mass destructors.

 

[PuffnScruff]

i am amazed that the rational that people are coming up with is "if the u.s. has nukes then iran should too, along with north korea, china, syria, and any country if they want them. nukes for all! nukes for a dollar! let's sell them at wal-mart for low low prices and let gangs use them in stead of drive-by shootings."

good to know you people put a lot of thought into this...

 

[Glockmatic]

You guys understand that there are other countries that have nukes right? It isn't just western countries that have them. The world has enough nuclear powers, we don't need unstable countries having them

 

[Sebastian]

We dont need the us or russia or france to have nukes either, right?

 

[Rukas]

You guys understand that there are other countries that have nukes right? It isn't just western countries that have them. The world has enough nuclear powers, we don't need unstable countries having them

Yeah cause you know, the US is sooo stable.

 

[AmerikazMost]

Yeah cause you know, the US is sooo stable.

News flash. The United States is the oldest government in the world. It's a democratic nation with free and fair elections. The constitution is strict yet adaptable. There are heavy emphases on civil liberties and economic opportunity, though no doubt they could be improved (whose couldn't?).

Bush has done a lot to shit on these things, but the country itself is stable, and most other Presidents at least act in the best interest of the country and not themselves. Even Reagan was a gem in comparison.


But when I'm voting for change in my primary this spring, I'll keep in mind to vote for the candidate that can do something to help you Aussies with your race riots and your farmland drying up.

 

[Sebastian]

News flash. The United States is the oldest government in the world. It's a democratic nation with free and fair elections. The constitution is strict yet adaptable. There are heavy emphases on civil liberties and economic opportunity, though no doubt they could be improved (whose couldn't?).

I remember reading something different

But when I'm voting for change in my primary this spring, I'll keep in mind to vote for the candidate that can do something to help you Aussies with your race riots and your farmland drying up.

Lmao.

 

[AmerikazMost]

I remember reading something different

I thought about putting a disclaimer regarding Bush, but again, all the things that are going wrong have everything to do with him and his cronies and very little to do with the U.S. in a broader perspective.

 

[Sebastian]

The imperial affectation is not only happening since Bush jun. is the president, oh well...

 

[AmerikazMost]

The imperial affectation is not only happening since Bush jun. is the president, oh well...

The United States has been more isolationist than any major Western power. We've had our moments, no doubt, but we've been far from imperialist.

Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Soviet Union = Imperialist

 

[Sebastian]

The US has hundreds of military bases all over the world and their only purpose is to keep or gain power. I think people call it military neo-colonialism or something like that. Its not about the expansion of the territory, its about getting access to resources, for example.

Edit:

Right now im reading a book ("The homocide of american democracy" by Chalmers Johnson.) which actually deals exactly with this situation. Let me quote two passages:

" The US not only denies the participation of new founded legal mechanisms, it even ignores the commitments of contracts/conventions they have ratified in the past".

and

"The US is the only country ever found guilty of terrorism by the World Court due to the actions of the administration of Reagan in Nicaragua in 1984."

There are, of course, many more passages fitting to the accusation of american (neo)imperialism. So, ill stop here and continue reading....

 

[Rukas]

News flash. The United States is the oldest government in the world. It's a democratic nation with free and fair elections. The constitution is strict yet adaptable. There are heavy emphases on civil liberties and economic opportunity, though no doubt they could be improved (whose couldn't?).

Bush has done a lot to shit on these things, but the country itself is stable, and most other Presidents at least act in the best interest of the country and not themselves. Even Reagan was a gem in comparison.

Wow thats all fantastic, debatable, but I wont for the sake of getting some sleep so I will say, yep, wow, fantastic, I have government envy now... Ermm... So which is the only country to ever actually use a weapon of mass destruction? Oh wait, the US!!!... Like I said... Yeah, cause the US is soooo stable.

(By stable I did not mean sustainable).

But when I'm voting for change in my primary this spring, I'll keep in mind to vote for the candidate that can do something to help you Aussies with your race riots and your farmland drying up.

I doubt theres much you can do unless you can change the climate for the farmlands, and as for race riots, we had one minor FIGHT between what is basically two rival communities/crews that compared to real RIOTS the US has had seems like a school yard brawl.

Please, when you vote, dont worry about helping Australia, help yourselves first.