Why Iran needs the Nuke

[Kalalification]

Iran has every right to defend itself

Sure it does, just not with nuclear weapons.

[Bosiu]

I'm sure some one in the thread has posted this opinion, but I can't be bothered reading the entire thread. Iran has every right to defend itself from American aggression, and the United States has absolutely no right to be involved in Middle Eastern affairs or tell Iran what it can and cannot build within its own borders. Doing so is hypocritical and counter-productive not only to diplomatic relations, but to the US economy and Iranian people.

The argument lies in what Iran can do when it mates rocket tech with nuclear tech. That is something that worries many people, especially Europeans. The second thing is that the US has a perfect reason to be involved in the Middle East, given the terrible instability of the region and the one resource that it pumps and exports that's so vital.

[Risottia]

Iran has every right to defend itself

Sure it does, just not with nuclear weapons.

Then again, one should understand why basically every country near Iran is allowed to have nukes, or to be part of an alliance which includes a nuclear umbrella.

Iraq: US client country
Turkey: party to NATO nuclear sharing
Saudi Arabia: under US protection
Russia: mnogo nukes
Kazakhstan: under Russian protection
Kuwait: US-and-Saudi client country
Pakistan: own nuclear weapons plus close ally of the US
India: own nuclear weapons
China: own nuclear weapons
Israel: very likely to own nuclear weapons but officially denies to have any
Syria: non-nuclear WMDs, tried to acquire nuclear tech from Best Korea

Considering that Pakistan, India, China, Syria and Israel don't have exactly a clean record when it comes to peaceful international relationships... frankly, a nuclear Iran fails to scare me a lot.

[Kalalification]

Then again, one should understand why basically every country near Iran is allowed to have nukes, or to be part of an alliance which includes a nuclear umbrella.

Iraq: US client country
Turkey: party to NATO nuclear sharing
Saudi Arabia: close ally of the US
Russia: mnogo nukes
Kazakhstan: under Russian protection
Kuwait: US-and-Saudi client country
Pakistan: own nuclear weapons plus close ally of the US
India: own nuclear weapons
China: own nuclear weapons
Israel: very likely to own nuclear weapons but officially denies to have any
Syria: non-nuclear WMDs, tried to acquire nuclear tech from Best Korea

Considering that Pakistan, India, China, Syria and Israel don't have exactly a clean record when it comes to peaceful international relationships... frankly, a nuclear Iran fails to scare me a lot.

Are you really trying to argue nuclear-fucking-fairness? Holy hell, son, do you WANT an apocalypse?

The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. Certainly not in the case of Iran.

Don't go trying to circumvent international law so that you can get in a few jabs at the US. It's not going to diminish US presence, and serves only to give theocratic fuckheads talking points when they pull ridiculous shit.

[12 year olds]

Shouldn't all nations have a 2nd amendment right to nukes? Never underestimate George III.

[Bosiu]

Sure it does, just not with nuclear weapons.

Then again, one should understand why basically every country near Iran is allowed to have nukes, or to be part of an alliance which includes a nuclear umbrella.

Iraq: US client country
Turkey: party to NATO nuclear sharing
Saudi Arabia: under US protection
Russia: mnogo nukes
Kazakhstan: under Russian protection
Kuwait: US-and-Saudi client country
Pakistan: own nuclear weapons plus close ally of the US
India: own nuclear weapons
China: own nuclear weapons
Israel: very likely to own nuclear weapons but officially denies to have any
Syria: non-nuclear WMDs, tried to acquire nuclear tech from Best Korea

Considering that Pakistan, India, China, Syria and Israel don't have exactly a clean record when it comes to peaceful international relationships... frankly, a nuclear Iran fails to scare me a lot.

Most of those countries don't own the nukes. For instance, the missiles in Turkey are operated by the US Air Force on US bases. The Turkish government cannot control them in any way other than whether or not they want the potential boost to the country's coffers. This also extends to Kazakhstan, those missiles are owned and maintained by the Russians.

China and Russia, are signatories but are allowed to keep stockpiles under the treaty's provisions. India, Pakistan and Israel do keep nukes (which the latter denies as you have mentioned) but have not signed or ratified the treaty and therefore are not violating international law by doing so. Iran however is, because they have signed, ratified, and still recognize the treaty.

I don't think we have nukes in Iraq, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait don't seem interested in the technology while Iraq came close with a French design before the Israelis got nervous and bombed it.

[Arkinesia]

Pakistan: own nuclear weapons plus close ally of the US

Pakistan? Close US ally? Ha, no. The State Department plans on cutting ties with Pakistan once combat operations in Afghanistan end in 2014. Constant squabbles with the ISI (who runs the government and hid Osama for years) made sure of that.

[Camelza]

to wave it around like the other dudes

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

Iran has every right to defend itself

Sure it does, just not with nuclear weapons.

Oh, I beg to differ. Put yourself in their situation. Say if your neighbor across the street had a grenade a constantly intimidated you, because of the specific beliefs you practice in your home. Wouldn't you like the right to be armed?

A common argument is the threat of nuclear fall out, but if the USA didn't mess with Iran in the first place than we wouldn't have this situation occurring. So believe what you will, but if the leaders of Iran are smart they'll arm themselves with a nuclear weapon.

[Garboshia]

Then again, one should understand why basically every country near Iran is allowed to have nukes, or to be part of an alliance which includes a nuclear umbrella.

Iraq: US client country
Turkey: party to NATO nuclear sharing
Saudi Arabia: close ally of the US
Russia: mnogo nukes
Kazakhstan: under Russian protection
Kuwait: US-and-Saudi client country
Pakistan: own nuclear weapons plus close ally of the US
India: own nuclear weapons
China: own nuclear weapons
Israel: very likely to own nuclear weapons but officially denies to have any
Syria: non-nuclear WMDs, tried to acquire nuclear tech from Best Korea

Considering that Pakistan, India, China, Syria and Israel don't have exactly a clean record when it comes to peaceful international relationships... frankly, a nuclear Iran fails to scare me a lot.

Are you really trying to argue nuclear-fucking-fairness? Holy hell, son, do you WANT an apocalypse?

The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. Certainly not in the case of Iran.

Don't go trying to circumvent international law so that you can get in a few jabs at the US. It's not going to diminish US presence, and serves only to give theocratic fuckheads talking points when they pull ridiculous shit.

Let's imagine a world where nukes never existed.... The US and USSR would have had a massive conventional war, a few years after WW II ended, on a scale that would make WW II look like a roit that got really out of hand and if the USSR won.... Well let's be glad that nukes prevented the possibility of that happening. So in a way nukes helped prevent an apocalyptic war. Ironic huh?

[Norstal]

Sure it does, just not with nuclear weapons.

Oh, I beg to differ. Put yourself in their situation. Say if your neighbor across the street had a grenade a constantly intimidated you, because of the specific beliefs you practice in your home. Wouldn't you like the right to be armed?

A common argument is the threat of nuclear fall out, but if the USA didn't mess with Iran in the first place than we wouldn't have this situation occurring. So believe what you will, but if the leaders of Iran are smart they'll arm themselves with a nuclear weapon.

They shouldn't have signed that Nuclear Proliferation Treaty then. Come on, it's in the first page.

Or they should do what you're telling them what they should do and cause a massive global shitstorm.

[Hippostania]

Iran is a theocratic islamofacist dictatorship that doesn't have any right to have a nuke. Iran's government should be replaced by a Western-led intervention to liberate the people of Iran, and to return the Shah of Iran to his rightful position as the head of state of Iran, and the leaders of the so called ''Islamic Republic'' should be tried for crimes against humanity and executed.

[Costa Fiero]

Sure, international law is just a technicality. Not only that, but since it's just a technicality, you should support a nuclear Iran.

But I don't. For one thing, a nuclear armed Iran would create more instability in an already dangerous Middle East as well as a new nuclear arms race. The Saudis have already expressed great interest in acquiring nuclear weapons once Iran does.

And the thought of Saudi Arabia acquiring them is scary. Terrifying even.

If Iran's leadership were as crazy as you make it sound, they'd have sold more weapons to Hezbollah and sparked WWIII by now.

Iran's leadership is insane. Just not enough to condemn themselves to being turned into a steaming crater. But they are crazy enough to get close.

Iran can't do anything even if they become nuclear because Israel and the Saudis would gang-rape them before the USN could even respond.

Which is what I am hoping won't happen. As I posted above, the idea of Saudi Arabia acquiring nuclear weapons is a scary thought.

[Norstal]

Iran is a theocratic islamofacist dictatorship that doesn't have any right to have a nuke. Iran's government should be replaced by a Western-led intervention to liberate the people of Iran, and to return the Shah of Iran to his rightful position as the head of state of Iran, and the leaders of the so called ''Islamic Republic'' should be tried for crimes against humanity and executed.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaw?

[Costa Fiero]

Iran is a theocratic islamofacist dictatorship that doesn't have any right to have a nuke. Iran's government should be replaced by a Western-led intervention to liberate the people of Iran, and to return the Shah of Iran to his rightful position as the head of state of Iran, and the leaders of the so called ''Islamic Republic'' should be tried for crimes against humanity and executed.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaw?

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The reason no-one cared when India and Pakistan got warheads was because they were to counter each other. India was very open about their nuclear programme, and basically came out and said "okay, look, we're producing warheads, but look at the missiles we have".
I don't think India has missiles long ranged enough to meaningfully threaten anyone the Security Council is worried about. They're big on IRBMs, missiles with ranges of just a few thousand km.

Not to mention, India and Pakistan are both friendly with the west (India with the Commonwealth, and Pakistan with the US).
Iran is none of the things I just said. Iran wants warheads for posturing and wouldn't spend too long considering the outcome of nuking Israel. India's warheads are purely by defence, as is evidenced by the short range of their missiles, and the small size of the arsenal.

[Garboshia]

Iran is a theocratic islamofacist dictatorship that doesn't have any right to have a nuke. Iran's government should be replaced by a Western-led intervention to liberate the people of Iran, and to return the Shah of Iran to his rightful position as the head of state of Iran, and the leaders of the so called ''Islamic Republic'' should be tried for crimes against humanity and executed.

Firstly, the Shah is dead. Secondly, we tried that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadegh# ... _Mosaddegh didn't work out too well. Thirdly, a lot of Iran's enemies are starting to develope nukes, if Iran doesn't get any nukes to act as a deterent they might get nuked to bits by said enemies who will not need to fear retaliation.

[Hippostania]

Firstly, the Shah is dead.

There is this thing called ''line of succession''

Secondly, we tried that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadegh# ... _Mosaddegh didn't work out too well.

It worked just fine. Mossadegh was a criminal who tried to steal foreign assets. When you commit a crime, you should be punished. Same with the ''Islamic Republic''. Its leadership has committed horrendous crimes, and they must be punished.

Thirdly, a lot of Iran's enemies are starting to develope nukes, if Iran doesn't get any nukes to act as a deterent they might get nuked to bits by said enemies who will not need to fear retaliation.

We might let Iran have nuke after the regime change. Before that, I wouldn't give anything except maybe a few very sharp sticks to them.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

Oh, I beg to differ. Put yourself in their situation. Say if your neighbor across the street had a grenade a constantly intimidated you, because of the specific beliefs you practice in your home. Wouldn't you like the right to be armed?

A common argument is the threat of nuclear fall out, but if the USA didn't mess with Iran in the first place than we wouldn't have this situation occurring. So believe what you will, but if the leaders of Iran are smart they'll arm themselves with a nuclear weapon.

They shouldn't have signed that Nuclear Proliferation Treaty then. Come on, it's in the first page.

Or they should do what you're telling them what they should do and cause a massive global shitstorm.

They should definitely do what I'm telling them to do! They should build the biggest nuke that they can then wave it in front of the UNs face. No country that is being bullied should stand down to any aggressor, America wouldn't do the same and Iran shouldn't either. If from a ethical standpoint if Iran doesn't stand up to itself and resist what's to stop the US from bullying her in the future? Think about it: What happens to a victim when he/she stand up to their tormentor the bully doesn't stop? The problem only gets worse because the bully believes he/she can get away with these things an other bullies might join in for the same reason. For this reason Iran needs to stand up and defend itself, if the founding fathers were observing this situation today I believe that they would agree with me.

Also, I personally don't see any risk to Iran having a bomb. North Korea is ideologically more dangerous than Iran, and they have a bomb that they never use, and Israel does too. These countries favor status quo, and using a nuke outside of defense would hurt that. That's why I place my stakes on them not doing it unless they're provoked into war.

[Costa Fiero]

They should definitely do what I'm telling them to do! They should build the biggest nuke that they can then wave it in front of the UNs face.

Please, for the love of Jeebus, tell me you are joking.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

They should definitely do what I'm telling them to do! They should build the biggest nuke that they can then wave it in front of the UNs face.

Please, for the love of Jeebus, tell me you are joking.

Ok, maybe they shouldn't wave it in front of the UNs face, but they should build a bomb and test it safely once.

[Anacasppia]

In short, the Iranians benefit a lot - nobody is going to dare to mess with it, the other Middle Eastern states, I don't know, depending on whether they are friend or foe with Iran, and very bad news for America and its allies (i.e. Israel and Saudi Arabia both of which are at loggerheads with Iran). From my perspective, that's bad news, and I think it will be a destabilizing factor - I doubt the other Middle Eastern states will all stand by idly and watch Iran develop nuclear weapons. Worse yet, other states may start developing one, leading to a nuclear arms race which can only further destabilize the region.

[Garboshia]

Firstly, the Shah is dead.

There is this thing called ''line of succession''

Secondly, we tried that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadegh# ... _Mosaddegh didn't work out too well.

It worked just fine. Mossadegh was a criminal who tried to steal foreign assets. When you commit a crime, you should be punished. Same with the ''Islamic Republic''. Its leadership has committed horrendous crimes, and they must be punished.

Thirdly, a lot of Iran's enemies are starting to develope nukes, if Iran doesn't get any nukes to act as a deterent they might get nuked to bits by said enemies who will not need to fear retaliation.

We might let Iran have nuke after the regime change. Before that, I wouldn't give anything except maybe a few very sharp sticks to them.

1) Okay then we have a replacement Shah that's a good start 2) And after we put the Shah back in power he was ousted again, seeing a pattern? 3) I agree with you on this

[Camelza]

Firstly, the Shah is dead.

There is this thing called ''line of succession''

I can agree that Reza is a good fellow (unlike his father) and I wouldn't mind if he was given a ceremonial role in government

Secondly, we tried that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadegh# ... _Mosaddegh didn't work out too well.

It worked just fine. Mossadegh was a criminal who tried to steal foreign assets. When you commit a crime, you should be punished. Same with the ''Islamic Republic''. Its leadership has committed horrendous crimes, and they must be punished.

NO,it wasn't a crime,he practised the will of the Iranian people as oil was in the land of Iran before BP came,therefore it should belong to it's people not to a British company,now what the Shah and CIA did was a crime
...but you propably don't think this way so I won't try to reason with you

Thirdly, a lot of Iran's enemies are starting to develope nukes, if Iran doesn't get any nukes to act as a deterent they might get nuked to bits by said enemies who will not need to fear retaliation.

We might let Iran have nuke after the regime change. Before that, I wouldn't give anything except maybe a few very sharp sticks to them.

no country shall have nukes,pro-western or not ...ban them once and for all

[Anacasppia]

Uh.
It doesn't appear that any of Iran's enemies such as Saudi Arabia are developing nuclear weapons. As for Israel, it probably already has them anyway. But I doubt any country would use any nuclear weapon in the first place unless their sheer existence is inherently under threat. Whether or not Iran has the nukes with which to retaliate, chances are other countries are not going to watch idly should Iran get nuked.