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?
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.
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??
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.
Lol to the British Empire comment, a whole different subject , I never said they were bad guys, just more willing to use nuclear weapons.
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.
Iran's facilities will be ash and powder before they gain that weapon.
I would make glass thier #1 export.
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.
You all seem to be forgetting that only one country has ever used a nuclear weapon against another - the USA.
Edit... other than Muldania
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Could you imagine the devastation caused by a tactical nuclear war in the Middle East? I'm assuming the United Nations can.
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
by Ralph Deeds 9 years ago
How serious and immediate is a nuclear threat from Iran? What should we do about it? Some of the same hawks who helped talk us into invading Iraq are coming out of the woodwork and saying that a nuclear Iran is intolerable and something must be done to prevent it from happening. A timely and...
by rhamson 11 years ago
With Irans new revelations that they have a secret site for the nuclear capabilities is this the latest step in the path to a nuclear war?
by Zubair Ahmed 9 years ago
Professor Francis Boyle, the person who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 enacted by the US Congress, said that in 2001-2004, the US Federal Government spent $14.5 billion for civilian bio-warfare-related work. What other purpose does this serve but to kill people?The US and...
by Harvey Stelman 11 years ago
Who among you is willing to admit they did not believe Iran wanted nuclear weapons? Talk the talk, now walk the walk!
by AngelTrader 9 years ago
It is all falling neatly into place for the US to attack Iran on behalf of Saudi Arabia. The US views the plot as state-sponsored terrorism. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton described it as a "violation of international norms" and said she would discuss with allies in Europe and...
by Sandrea 9 years ago
Should all countries be armed with nuclear weapons
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|