jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (30 posts)

If Iran develops a nuclear weapon, how should we react?

  1. dadibobs profile image60
    dadibobsposted 5 years ago

    If Iran was to succeed in developing a nuclear weapon, how should our own nations react?
    Would we strike at the construction facitily, and  possible storage sites?, or do we just use a nuclear weapon on them first?. Would more sanctions and embargo's actually do anything to prevent them from using their own weapon?

    What are your thoughts on this question?

    1. dadibobs profile image60
      dadibobsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think the main reason why western countries don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, is because they would be much more willing to use them than us.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
        Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How on earth have you come to this conclusion? Why do you believe that some leader in the Middle East would be more likely to push the button than some leader in the West? Ahh, is it because some Asian or Muslim man is somehow less civilised and perhaps slightly mad??

        1. LewSethics profile image60
          LewSethicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No, I think we all realize that a specific muslim man is less civilized and slightly mad.

  2. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    How come you get them and they don't?

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      +1. But questions like that fall on deaf ears, when you talk to Hypocrites..

  3. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    So they can't have them because they are bad guys. Ever hear of the British empire? Leon Panetta just admitted Iran is not trying to make any nukes. It is all about Israel, oil, gas, and only being able to buy oil with dollars world wide. Iran now will not sell oil for dollars and the most unforgivable sin, they have their own oil trading borse. Definite no-no.

  4. dadibobs profile image60
    dadibobsposted 5 years ago

    Lol to the British Empire comment, a whole different subject smile, I never said they were bad guys, just more willing to use nuclear weapons.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Link?? Serious study that concludes a Middle Eastern (Iranian) leader would contemplate nuclear war before a Western leader would?

  5. profile image0
    Muldaniaposted 5 years ago

    Inventing nuclear weapons was like opening Pandora's box.  But once it was opened it could never be closed again.  Unfortunately nuclear weapons exist, and it was never going to be possible to limit them to a select few countries.  Iran might object to the United States having nuclear weapons, and as the US is the only country in the world ever to actually use nuclear weapons in time of war, it could be argued that it is the US which is more likely to use them again.  And who is to say which countries are allowed them?  Is it the job of the US to police the rest of the world forever?  Having said that, it is obviously worrying if new countries gain these doomsday weapons.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I was once, and in theory, still am, against nuclear weapons. Now however, I have come to understand that they are the greatest deterrent against threats from imperialist nations.

  6. profile image59
    WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years ago

    Iran's facilities will be ash and powder before they gain that weapon.

    I would make glass thier #1 export.

    1. Moderndayslave profile image59
      Moderndayslaveposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      And pollute the rest of the planet ? Never mind Russia and China,ever hear of them?

      1. profile image59
        WhoBeYouBeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        They would whine and cry, throw a hissy fit, and then move on.

        I do not fear China or Russia.

  7. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago
  8. dadibobs profile image60
    dadibobsposted 5 years ago

    The conclusion is derived from the use of suicide bombers, for example. Any country willing to sacrifice it's own children, would not give yours or mine a second thought.

  9. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    The difference between suicide bombers and drones being?

  10. dadibobs profile image60
    dadibobsposted 5 years ago

    Drones are not strapped to eight year old children.

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No, but they kill and mutilate eight year old children.

  11. profile image0
    The Writers Dogposted 5 years ago

    You all seem to be forgetting that only one country has ever used a nuclear weapon against another - the USA.

    Edit... other than Muldania

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I haven't forgotten that.

  12. dadibobs profile image60
    dadibobsposted 5 years ago

    If a drone was to kill an eight year old child, it is by accident, or operator error. For an eight year old child to be used as a weapon, this means the parents woke them up that morning, gave them breakfast, packed and strapped on their bags and then sent them off to an explosive death.

    The point i was trying to make was this,

    if Iran can use it's own children as suicide bombers, would they consider our children if/when planning a nuclear attack on the US/?UK

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      If it's by accident, then that's ok, right? The US and the UK do not consider our children, they pack them off to war, and salute the coffin when it returns home. For what? Because our leaders care about the lives of others in the middle east, or whichever oil rich, natural resource wealthy country they can exploit on behalf of the Rothchilds, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs? If you really, really, believe that our nations go to war for any other reason, or really, really, believe that the Iranians (because of race? religion? what? are more willing to go to war than our leaders, than you have some serious growing up to do. That would make you naive in the extreme.

  13. HistoryProdigy profile image78
    HistoryProdigyposted 5 years ago

    If I was the President of the United States I would not do anything. Here is why. The speed at which technology is moving today allows even third world countries to create nuclear weapons. I hate to say this because it will make every one of my paranoid countrymen shake in their boots, but eventually every country, big and small, will have nuclear weapons. We cannot just go around the world invading country after country taking over their nuclear programs. People may argue against me and say that a nuclear attack on the United States would be devestating. Yes, I agree, it would be devestating; however, if the United States continues this interventionalist policy then the United States will fall apart much sooner then it would at the hands of nuclear warfare.

    1. dadibobs profile image60
      dadibobsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting points historyprodigy, but would the act of non intervention rely on the M.A.D (mutually assured destruction) principle?

      What happens when the other country in question is willing to die en masse for their beliefs?

      1. HistoryProdigy profile image78
        HistoryProdigyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That is a good question, but there is no country on earth, at the moment or in all of history, that would be willing to sacrifice its entire existence in order to kill a handful of people in another country.

        1. profile image0
          Muldaniaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The problem is that people see the actions of a few Islamic extremists, and convince themselves that the whole Muslim world is ready to blow the world up in the name of Allah.  However, people are terrified of the same things, no matter what their religion.  The fact that the US is the most Christian country in the Western world does not make its people more likely to launch a war, in which no one would survive.  Nuclear bombs can't distinguish between a Muslim country and a Christian one.

    2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
      Hollie Thomasposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      +1

    3. dungeonraider profile image83
      dungeonraiderposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Could you imagine the devastation caused by a tactical nuclear war in the Middle East?  I'm assuming the United Nations can.

  14. dadibobs profile image60
    dadibobsposted 5 years ago

    I think the question has raised some interesting points, and maybe our judgements and assumptions are clouded by our own media coverage.

    thank you everyone for participating smile

 
working