DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

…Who's going to force them?

Sometimes people engage the mouth before the brain.

Each and every sovereign nation has the right to develop whatever technology that it my desire.

It is when it uses that technology for evil purposes that the international community may gather together to put an end to it. The NAZI's V1 and V2 rockets are a good example from our recent world history.

However, that nation must FIRST use that technology in an evil manner upon another nation.

Until that happens, no other nation has the right to tell them what they can or cannot do.

I would agree almost completely with PapaDawg.

Iran is a sovereign nation and they deserve to develop nuclear power for energy purposes.

The problem I have is that I honestly do not trust them that they want it for that purpose. They have said repeatedly that they want to destroy the state of Israel and it seems to me that once they develop nuclear technology that they would use it for that purpose. Keep in mind this is my opinion. I THINK they would use it as a weapon. I think that because I do not trust them. I could very well be wrong.

However, if anyone needs to stop them from developing this technology in order to keep them from using it as a weapon, it should be Israel and Israel alone. It is not our business (the United States). It is not the business of the "world community." It should be left alone to the nation that feels threatened by them.

Just my opinion.

Consider. If Iran uses a nuclear weapon, or supplies it to hostile agents who then use it, what happens to Iran? Iran does not exist after that happens. Not only would Israel's military retaliate, but ours, and probably most of the civilized world.

I don't consider Iran to be a perfect "rational actor" in foreign relations, but there's a big difference between sending legions of young men off to die in some "glorious" ill-fated cause and using a weapon of mass destruction. The former carries no risks to the power and position of the people who decide to send people off to die (see: America, United States of). The latter carries incredible risks to not only power and position over a country, which is generally of considerable importance to decision making bodies, but also to personal survival, which is sort of important to those same bodies.

The appropriate reason to acquire nuclear weapons is not for offensive purposes as that is a death wish for whoever does so in a world with multiple nuclear state actors and powerful military conventional forces. Israel's for example could handle Iran by itself in a stand-off fight without having to go nuclear, hence why Iran instead funds groups like Hiz'bollah rather than attack head-on. Nuclear arms as acquired even by rogue states are for deterrence. See: Korea, North. For the reason that it prevents significant interference in their internal, and to a lesser degree regional affairs, by great power states.

It makes no sense to acquire a nuclear weapon with the expressed purposes of deploying it unprovoked against another nation. Such an acquisition may not be desirable, but it is difficult to see what if anything can be done to prevent it that does not carry significant and possibly unsustainable risks to American national security interests (ie, starting yet another war with a stretched thin military force already occupied in the same region).

Good point Sun. It would be stupid of Iran to deploy a nuclear weapon against Israel…or the United States for that matter. They would just up being destroyed themselves.

Do you think they have a death wish perhaps?

Why the UN of course!

No. That's the point. They don't. They have a power wish, just like everyone else in charge somewhere.