Be a Supporter!

Iran should have atomic weapons

  • 4,397 Views
  • 105 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-02 09:44:33 Reply

At 1 hour ago, PsyhcoWalrus wrote:
I don't believe the U.S. should get involved with every little nation's affairs, but they should stop Iran from developing their nuclear weapons. It's going to be worse than 9/11 if nobody stops them.

true, even a small nuke would be devastating inside of a major city.

You wanna talk about causing panic, a small nuke smuggled into America, put in the trunk of a car, driven into a major city like new york or Washington DC and set off would cause some serious panic, not to mention irradiate the area aeound the blast.

9/11 would be nothing in the face of some jihadist group touting that they can slip nuclear weapons into America and set them off.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-02 11:43:49 Reply

Does the news that North Korea is abandoning (or so it claims) its nuclear program change the story here?

North Korea is claiming that they get more benefit from peaceful neiughbors than they would from the mere ownership of nuclear weapons.

Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-02 13:26:08 Reply

First of all, I'm not suggesting we invade Iran

then we are in agreement, I wouldn't GIVE them one either, but to stop them from getting one pretty much implies invasion. I would however SELL them one if the price was right, and I would except my payment only in gold :3.

At 3 hours ago, Korriken wrote: 1. we would not benefit from it.
2. Back when we backed the Taliban against Russia, it would have been pointless to give the Taliban a nuclear weapon to blow up a city because they were trying to get rid of the Russians, not the people in the cities.

but they could have used it on Russia's cities.


irradiating your own lands would be counterproductive. you should know that by now. I'm not sure if you're overlooking something, trolling, or being intellectually dishonest here...

Israel is holy land to them, nuking that would surely go against their ideals in some way.


Given that Iran is funding them, they have very good reason not to try to blackmail them or try to take over Iran. Iran and the Jihadists have a common enemy, all non Muslims. Iran gives them a sizable portion of their funds, having that cut off would put a large dent in their ability to operate. Also, Iran most likely knows what they are up to and knows where they operate. It wouldn't surprise me if Iran was training them directly.

We were funding the same group of militants before too. They turned on us, because we were killing people and building bases in their holy land. Taliban recently turned on Syria for killing Muslims, and of course, Iran would be ripe for revolution as well if we didn't give their government so much reason to rally their people against us. If they turned on the Syrian government for killing Muslims in a revolution that we support, they will turn on Iran for killing Muslims as well. Doesn't matter if Iran is funding them, it didn't matter to the Taliban when they turned on us.


Either way letting an enemy (and yes Iran is an enemy, not misunderstood, not poor pitiful Iran, no, they work against our interests and must be kept in check) get some sort of leg up on you is never advisable.

who says doing the same thing that made them our enemy in the first place is such a good idea? Here is what you do, you open up trade and end the stupid sanctions, their economy improves and they have no reason to ruin such a good thing. Then their people start realizing how much better we have it in our free society and that we aren't such bad people after all and they push for change. And we don't have to lose a single soldier. But if we go out of our way to hinder their economy like we did with Germany before WW2, then were asking for trouble.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-02 14:08:44 Reply

At 27 minutes ago, Iron-Hampster wrote:
but they could have used it on Russia's cities.

I'm certain that Afghans in Russia at that time were rather low in society, if they existed in Russia itself at all. the odds of them slipping a weapon over the border and into a city undetected would have been impossible. Russia didn't have the free society we have in America. for the longest time in Russia you couldn't even relocate yourself without government permission.


irradiating your own lands would be counterproductive. you should know that by now. I'm not sure if you're overlooking something, trolling, or being intellectually dishonest here...
Israel is holy land to them, nuking that would surely go against their ideals in some way.

Who said anything about nuking Israel? In order to take down Israel the jihadist part of the Muslim world needs to rid Israel of its allies first. in order to do that they have to force the west into submission. atm its impossible. they can't muster up the people or technology to it that. However, the threat of them having nukes in your country with the capability to deploy them in your major cities, is a major threat. Also, Iran having nuclear weapons pointed around the world would be a major threat, with a "you assist Israel and we'll drop a nuke on your capital city" mantra.

We were funding the same group of militants before too. They turned on us, because we were killing people and building bases in their holy land. Taliban recently turned on Syria for killing Muslims, and of course, Iran would be ripe for revolution as well if we didn't give their government so much reason to rally their people against us. If they turned on the Syrian government for killing Muslims in a revolution that we support, they will turn on Iran for killing Muslims as well. Doesn't matter if Iran is funding them, it didn't matter to the Taliban when they turned on us.

Since when does Iran kill Muslims? Last I checked, leaving Islam is a death sentence there and not being a Muslim makes you a 2nd class citizen open to persecution. Also, they're not turning on Syriua for killing muslims, they're moving into Syria to grow their numbers.

who says doing the same thing that made them our enemy in the first place is such a good idea? Here is what you do, you open up trade and end the stupid sanctions, their economy improves and they have no reason to ruin such a good thing.

what part of "facist regime with no interest in the quality of life of its people would use the boost in trade to bolster its military" makes me wonder if that would actually work

Then their people start realizing how much better we have it in our free society and that we aren't such bad people after all and they push for change. And we don't have to lose a single soldier. But if we go out of our way to hinder their economy like we did with Germany before WW2, then were asking for trouble.

Let's try it with North Korea first. Given that Iran is building a "halal" version of the internet and cutting its people off from the world wide web, I ponder if your claim has any real basis in reality. Iran controls the media, and now its working towards removing anti government influences on the internet as well.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-02 14:09:47 Reply

At 2 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote: Does the news that North Korea is abandoning (or so it claims) its nuclear program change the story here?

North Korea is claiming that they get more benefit from peaceful neiughbors than they would from the mere ownership of nuclear weapons.

Maybe Kim Jong Un is smarter than Papa Kim


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Sense-Offender
Sense-Offender
  • Member since: May. 16, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 29
Movie Buff
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-02 14:27:34 Reply

At 12 hours ago, SolInvictus wrote: that'll be the day. question; has any nuclear armed nation stated its backed down from MAD as a nuclear deterrent?
or is it another "that'll be the day situation"?

There was that deal between the U.S and Russia to get rid of a certain amount of their nukes, but both countries still have a shitload of them.


one of the four horsemen of the Metal Hell

BBS Signature
mhb18
mhb18
  • Member since: Aug. 11, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-02 15:21:20 Reply

A nuclear Iran would not use nuclear weapons or give them away. Thats just an absurd theory. Iran wants to survive not be destroyed. Nuclear weapons however would give Iran extra defenses because no one will invade a nuclear super power and it would make Iran a regional hegemon.

The main two people who fear a nuclear Iran are Israel and Saudi Arabia. Right now Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East and it wants to keep it that way because it will maintain their hegemony. Historically Israel usually used military force to get what it wanted but a nuclear Iran would make the trigger friendly Israeli's have to rethink their strategy.

Saudi Arabia doesn't want a nuclear Iran because Saudi Arabia has been oppressing the people of Bahrain. Most of the people in Bahrain are Shia Muslims while the monarchy of Bahrain is Sunni Muslim. Furthermore the people Bahrain almost overthrew the monarchy during the Arab Spring but then the Saudi's sent their tanks in and they killed them all. Also Iran considers Bahrain as a part of Iran that was cut away and that they want returned. So the Saudi's fear that Iran might try and take back Bahrain.

MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-02 15:24:46 Reply

I seriously doubt that Iran, perhaps one of the most nukable countries in the world, would nuke Israel. Nukes would just prevent Israel or the US from invading them.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
SouthAsian
SouthAsian
  • Member since: Feb. 16, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 25
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-02 20:25:31 Reply

I really agree we Americans should not dictate as to what goods,services, can be procured by who.Besides Irna nor any country is that narrow minded to initiate nuclear launches which would guarantee certain annihilation of us all.Who would honestly be ok with going down in history as the person who caused great destruction of civilization?

ClickToPlay
ClickToPlay
  • Member since: Jan. 23, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-04 13:19:48 Reply

At 2 days ago, Korriken wrote:

Lol, and what are you 'interests' exactly?


All Eyez On Me.

BBS Signature
Silverdust
Silverdust
  • Member since: Mar. 4, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Art Lover
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-04 13:36:00 Reply

Perhaps in the past, it would have been better to refrain from such irrational hatred of the nation; this might have never been an issue. But, because of faults on all sides (mostly due to selfish endeavors and some understandable paranoia), it would be a high risk to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons at this point. The region is extremely unstable. Despite the inevitability of permanently damaging relations with the Arab and Persian nations, we have to remain aggressive. Terrorism, though, shouldn't be the focus of this argument; because sadly, the subject is widely taken out of context and misused. Personally, I side with Israel on most issues - if for no other reason than to ensure their protection ("their" referring to the people and not the government). Allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons would be a disaster.

However, I think that on a strictly moral basis, it would be wrong to prevent a sovereign nation from seeking means with which to presumably protect itself. I can certainly see their side of the argument with basically the entire western world pointing guns at them behind fingers. We have backed Iran into a corner, and frankly, have only offered pitiful and halfhearted attempts at negotiations. I realize that it may be far to late at this point (and probably began to be after the Cold War).

So, I would say: Iran should have nuclear weapons, but we should not allow them to. Hopefully that makes some sense. Feel free to disagree, though. I'll be the first to admit that I am not a government official, nor do I have extensive background in political affairs.


RussiaToday : Aljazeera : TEDTalks : io9
"We have the Bill of Rights; what we need is a Bill of Responsibilities." ~ Bill Maher

BBS Signature
MrFlopz
MrFlopz
  • Member since: Mar. 29, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Musician
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-04 13:59:10 Reply

@Silverdust

I can see where you're coming from but I think Israel is a bigger threat to Iran than Iran is to Israel. Iran is in a tight spot and if we wanted to we could bomb them into a crater. We have military bases surrounding the entire country. Plus Israel has its nukes ready. If Iran was crazy enough to nuke Israel, we would destroy them. And they know it. Iran is afraid of Israel. Israel can drag the US into a war with Iran at any time. The threats of attack on Iran have been intensifying and Iran could be in danger if they can't get their hands on some nukes. At this point it seems like war with Iran is inevitable and the war hawks in Israel's government are making it worse. A nuclear Iran sounds dangerous, but I think it would provide stability and prevent another Iraq. Iran is more stable than the media makes it out to be. The region it's in is mostly unstable because of our presence there. The possibility of war with Iran is my greatest worry in the Middle East at the moment.


The average person has only one testicle.

BBS Signature
Silverdust
Silverdust
  • Member since: Mar. 4, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Art Lover
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-04 18:53:04 Reply

At 4 hours ago, MrFlopz wrote: @Silverdust

I agree. Israel isn't exactly noble in all of it's causes, and is prone to exaggerate it's method of self-defence. But, I do not believe in arming oppositions in the interest of "evening the odds". Instead, we should negotiate with Israel to ease the tension from their side. If they continue with their aggressive attitude, we should then cut down on foreign aid. This way, we do not run the risk of a "justified" preemptive strike on Iran. It's true that Iran, itself, is stable; and I believe they can remain so without nuclear weapons that could possibly be misused in the most extreme manner. Our best bet is to ease off our pressure on Iran before allowing them to develop nuclear weapons (which they actually are nowhere near accomplishing). It would prevent hostilities from their side, and blatant propaganda-induced, Iraq-style warfare from ours. This controversy can truly be solved with peaceful negotiation as it was in the Cold War. The pen is mightier than the sword, they say!


RussiaToday : Aljazeera : TEDTalks : io9
"We have the Bill of Rights; what we need is a Bill of Responsibilities." ~ Bill Maher

BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-04 20:36:46 Reply

At 7 hours ago, ClickToPlay wrote:
At 2 days ago, Korriken wrote:
Lol, and what are you 'interests' exactly?

IF you can't figure out the interests of a country by watching how it acts...


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

ClickToPlay
ClickToPlay
  • Member since: Jan. 23, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-05 03:03:49 Reply

At 6 hours ago, Korriken wrote:
At 7 hours ago, ClickToPlay wrote:
At 2 days ago, Korriken wrote:
Lol, and what are you 'interests' exactly?
IF you can't figure out the interests of a country by watching how it acts...

I just find it funny how you think you and your government are buddies, or something.
Their interest rarely ever meets yours, or any of your civilians.


All Eyez On Me.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-05 11:18:58 Reply

At 8 hours ago, ClickToPlay wrote: I just find it funny how you think you and your government are buddies, or something.
Their interest rarely ever meets yours, or any of your civilians.

And you would know this exactly how?

SolInvictus
SolInvictus
  • Member since: Oct. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-05 16:12:52 Reply

At 3 days ago, Sense-Offender wrote: There was that deal between the U.S and Russia to get rid of a certain amount of their nukes, but both countries still have a shitload of them.

i didn't mean disarmament, i was curious if they've given up on the policy of retaliating to a nuclear attack with enough bombs to bring everyone a cozy nuclear winter.


VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature
Spiderwebbie
Spiderwebbie
  • Member since: Jan. 22, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Artist
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-08 02:10:09 Reply

Nobody and no country needs nuclear weapons anymore. If wars should continue, we need just throw away the guns, and get back out the swords we all once knew. I'll always side with the one who brings a sword to a gun fight. But bombs, ON THE NUCLEAR LEVEL? you freakin serious? did nobody learn anything from the last time one of these bombs drop??? Okay so you wanna end the world and not just dangerously torment your worldy nieghbor? I got an idea... IT's great! I think about it everytime my boss asks me to do anything, or that time I ran my car into that tree, TO AVOID THE SQUIRELL! .... or that nature show I watched last night and that beautiful elephant dies from the africian drought and the people filming this elephant over all these years did nothing but let it die.
LETS drop one of these things on the bigest volcano we can find... Iike the one right here in the good ol usa and see what happens? I'm actually curious.


BBS Signature
Trans-Atlantyk
Trans-Atlantyk
  • Member since: Jan. 10, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-08 02:16:45 Reply

At 2 minutes ago, Spiderwebbie wrote: Nobody and no country needs nuclear weapons anymore. If wars should continue, we need just throw away the guns, and get back out the swords we all once knew. I'll always side with the one who brings a sword to a gun fight. But bombs, ON THE NUCLEAR LEVEL? you freakin serious? did nobody learn anything from the last time one of these bombs drop??? Okay so you wanna end the world and not just dangerously torment your worldy nieghbor? I got an idea... IT's great! I think about it everytime my boss asks me to do anything, or that time I ran my car into that tree, TO AVOID THE SQUIRELL! .... or that nature show I watched last night and that beautiful elephant dies from the africian drought and the people filming this elephant over all these years did nothing but let it die.
LETS drop one of these things on the bigest volcano we can find... Iike the one right here in the good ol usa and see what happens? I'm actually curious.

You are incorrect here. The deterrent effect of nuclear weapons is widely understood to be the reason that there have been no major wars since the close of World War II. The deterrent effect is the reason the Cold War didn't become the Hot War - for one example of many.

Nuclear weapons are here to stay. No state will unilaterally disarm because that removes their deterrent. No group of states will multilaterally disarm because it leaves them with one hell of a prisoner's dilemma. Nuclear weapons have, ironically, kept the peace since World War II. There is an idea called the stability-instability paradox that I recommend you read about that I don't have the time to go into right now.

Spiderwebbie
Spiderwebbie
  • Member since: Jan. 22, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Artist
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-08 02:36:12 Reply


You are incorrect here. The deterrent effect of nuclear weapons is widely understood to be the reason that there have been no major wars since the close of World War II. The deterrent effect is the reason the Cold War didn't become the Hot War - for one example of many.

Nuclear weapons are here to stay. No state will unilaterally disarm because that removes their deterrent. No group of states will multilaterally disarm because it leaves them with one hell of a prisoner's dilemma. Nuclear weapons have, ironically, kept the peace since World War II. There is an idea called the stability-instability paradox that I recommend you read about that I don't have the time to go into right now.

I understand how it has kept peace. But I have to agree and say, there are some in this world we need worry about actually using them. I honestly don't think Iran would. However a desperate country, might sell something to the wrong person willing to buy. For anyone anywhere... we all on a worldy basis need to stay on top of these kind of weapons.

I just hate weapons and fighting all together. A comfortable world peace between one country to another and every country on this planet is something I would love to see in my lifetime.


BBS Signature
Trans-Atlantyk
Trans-Atlantyk
  • Member since: Jan. 10, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-08 02:53:02 Reply

At 11 minutes ago, Spiderwebbie wrote:

You are incorrect here. The deterrent effect of nuclear weapons is widely understood to be the reason that there have been no major wars since the close of World War II. The deterrent effect is the reason the Cold War didn't become the Hot War - for one example of many.

Nuclear weapons are here to stay. No state will unilaterally disarm because that removes their deterrent. No group of states will multilaterally disarm because it leaves them with one hell of a prisoner's dilemma. Nuclear weapons have, ironically, kept the peace since World War II. There is an idea called the stability-instability paradox that I recommend you read about that I don't have the time to go into right now.
I understand how it has kept peace. But I have to agree and say, there are some in this world we need worry about actually using them. I honestly don't think Iran would. However a desperate country, might sell something to the wrong person willing to buy. For anyone anywhere... we all on a worldy basis need to stay on top of these kind of weapons.

I just hate weapons and fighting all together. A comfortable world peace between one country to another and every country on this planet is something I would love to see in my lifetime.

I don't think that Iran would use them either. The issue that would arise from an Iranian nuclear weapon is not so much use of said weapon but the destabilizing effect it would have on the region. It Iran develops a weapon it would could set off a domino effect in the region. This would be for the deterrent effect. Let's say Iran develops a weapon and Saudi Arabia does not have one and is not under the US nuclear umbrella. They would naturally seek a weapon to deter Iran from detonating a nuclear device over their country. Reasonable. But then other nations may wish to develop a bomb to deter the Saudi bomb. And so on. Soon you have entire regions developing weapons and then the stability of the world plummets. This can be seen with India and Pakistan, for example.

I would like to see peace as well. I think most human beings would but one of the scourges of the human condition is conflict and violence. Take away nukes and replace them with sticks, someone will decide to kill the person with the smaller stick. Unfortunately, peace is not attainable however through proper management total war the scale of WWI or WWII can be averted.

dude23
dude23
  • Member since: Mar. 1, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-08 12:03:20 Reply

If Iran produced nuclear weapons and gave them to a terrorist organization that used them against the United States or Israel, how is that a winning move for them? If Iran did that, they would be obliterated.

Dominickaos
Dominickaos
  • Member since: Apr. 5, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Gamer
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-14 20:41:13 Reply

I don't have a problem from Iran producing its own nuclear program when it is clearly used for energy and that reason alone and I think most people can agree with this. However since the Iranian government is refusing to allow inspectors to fully inspect its nuclear sites then its really concerning and serious answers need to be addressed. If Iran is lying about its facilities peaceful intent and using its nuclear program to produce its own nuclear weapon then the world really needs to be concerned. Iran may only use those weapons if attacked but whats stopping Iran from selling these nuclear weapons to armed terrorist groups. Most people will think that's impossible, but there is more than one way to use the nuclear material, it doesn't necessarily have to explode to cause death, but merely using the radiation from it such as poisoning water supplies or using it in the air,

Dominickaos
Dominickaos
  • Member since: Apr. 5, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Gamer
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-14 20:43:05 Reply

I don't have a problem from Iran producing its own nuclear program when it is clearly used for energy and that reason alone and I think most people can agree with this. However since the Iranian government is refusing to allow inspectors to fully inspect its nuclear sites then its really concerning and serious answers need to be addressed. If Iran is lying about its facilities peaceful intent and using its nuclear program to produce its own nuclear weapon then the world really needs to be concerned. Iran may only use those weapons if attacked but whats stopping Iran from selling these nuclear weapons to armed terrorist groups. Most people will think that's impossible, but there is more than one way to use the nuclear material, it doesn't necessarily have to explode to cause death, but merely using the radiation from it such as poisoning water supplies or using it in the air.

hateyou1
hateyou1
  • Member since: Mar. 30, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Gamer
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-15 01:21:09 Reply

You sound as crazy as that so called "conservative" Ron Paul. No, psychos like them should NOT have nukes. They are ran under a theocracy that get rewarded in paradise for killing Christians and Jews (along with other infidels, which includes atheists like you). So getting a nuke would result in them blowing up not only our country, but the whole freakin world. Cootie, I believe you truly have a mental issue that you must sort out. Get off the marijuana since it is obviously killing all of your brain-cells.

Greggg586
Greggg586
  • Member since: Sep. 27, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Gamer
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-27 07:06:00 Reply

I have a question for a question. Who do you think Iran would use its nuclear weapons on first? I personally think it would be Israel.


KEEPIN It REAL Like HOLIFIELD, RAW like STAR WAR, CLEAN like Mr. CLEAN, MEAN Like Mr. T, SWEET Like SWEET TEA, I BRING THE BOOM shakalaka! Da Kool Kids Go Here

Spilda-Bongwata
Spilda-Bongwata
  • Member since: May. 17, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 20
Movie Buff
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-27 11:17:22 Reply

i thought middle eastern powers like afghanistan have had access to these weapons since the cold war?


BBS Signature
Spilda-Bongwata
Spilda-Bongwata
  • Member since: May. 17, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 20
Movie Buff
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-27 11:21:12 Reply

the question of allowing anyone to produce weapons of mass destruction is ridiculous, regardless of how many countries still have active nukes.


BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-27 11:28:41 Reply

At 3/27/12 07:06 AM, Greggg586 wrote: I have a question for a question. Who do you think Iran would use its nuclear weapons on first? I personally think it would be Israel.

Israel already does.

bismuthfeldspar
bismuthfeldspar
  • Member since: Mar. 2, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-27 14:54:41 Reply

They should have nuclear power, as they claim, monitored by the UN but only if they stop saying they want to genocide Israel.