Should N. Korea and/or Iran be allowed to have nukes?

[Brotha]

A lot of our discussions regarding Iran and N. Korea assume that they both shouldn't be allowed have nukes to begin with. I'm not trying to steal any thunder from Sueven's thread, if you want to debate this please post in his thread (although I guess I can't stop you from posting here). I was just wondering how many of us agree on the basic premise that they shouldn't have nukes.

[Nick]

No option for "no nukes for anyone" so I didn't vote.

No country should be allowed to have nukes.

No country is an exception to this rule.

Yes to a happier world.

[Brotha]

If you want nukes for anyone, choose both should be allowed to. If Iran and N. Korea can have nukes, anyone can.

Yeah I didn't think about the "nobody should be allowed to have nukes" option because it's completely unrealistic and I'm talking about these two cases specifically.

I'd add both if I could edit it though and add more options, but I can't.

[nobody]

"nobody should be allowed to have nukes"

nobody SHOULD be able to have nukes!

[Aruman]

No option for "no nukes for anyone" so I didn't vote.

No country should be allowed to have nukes.

No country is an exception to this rule.

Yes to a happier world.

I'd argue that no country having nukes would make for a much worse world situation.

I think there would be quite a few more wars going on, and many more of them occurring over the years.

Nukes help maintain world peace in a way.

[Kelshara]

And I'd argue that you would say something different if you were not from a country that has them

[Aruman]

And I'd argue that you would say something different if you were not from a country that has them

You can't tell me that the existence of nukes causes more wars to occur.

[Alfan]

Didn't we invade a country to stop said country from acquiring nuclear weapon technology?

[Rivera Bladestrike]

Nukes for some... Miniature American flags for everyone!

[Winnow]

We need to take over Canada so we don't have to sit through two national anthems during NBA All Star Games.

[Aruman]

Didn't we invade a country to stop said country from acquiring nuclear weapon technology?

Not yet...

If you are speaking about Iraq, that was about WMD, not necessarily nukes.

Iran:

We are going to go through the rigamarole of 'diplomatic' efforts for 10+ years, during which, Israel will have taken care of the problem. If Iran is trying to produce weapons grade material, well, they are just asking for trouble.

Many will be jumping on the 'Hate Israel' bandwagon for Israel removing a supposed nuclear threat from the Mideast, without UN or world approval.

N.Korea:

Ultimately China's problem. We are trying to use diplomacy with N. Korea... you can see the results. Let China park a million soldiers or so on N. Korea's border... that would rattle Il's cage a little.

I wish there was a way to get a dl of that Team America clip that was posted a little bit ago. I still laugh at it when I see it.

One last comment:

The citizens of countries that make me laugh the most are those in so called neutral countries. The ones that enjoy the protection of others, piping up thinking that their opinion really has any kind of influence on world politics. Reminds me of a chihuaua puppy nipping at the heels of a full grown great dane.

[Alfan]

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd ... 002.htm#04

That's arguing semantics, clearly nuclear weapons were under that umbrella of WMD.

Wait . . . are you Henry Kissinger?

[Xzion]

Kim Jong may be smarter then we give him credit for, hes surrounded by enemys and may just be threatening everyone with the nukes to recieve billions of dollars in aid...

[Aabidano]

may just be threatening everyone with the nukes to recieve billions of dollars in aid...

That's my guess, and also why the US doesn't want to negotiate 1:1 with them.

The genie was let out of the bottle 60 years ago, you can't put it back in. Some method of deterrent is needed, or loonies in charge of state govts will use nukes on a neighbor. Right now more nukes is the only real deterrent. Good? No not really, but what are your other options?

Everyone isn't going to just be nice to each other all of a sudden. It's a nice thought, but doesn't reflect the world we live in.

[Nick]

Yeah god forbid you so called evolved fuckwits actually ever realise the concept that total human annhilation is a detrimental way of keeping order (and the human race alive).

Only the worst type of hateful ignorant pedant would actually consider your argument valid. Pity there seem to be plenty of you shitbags to keep us occupied.

If you think it's totally irrelevant you are unfortunately seperated from a large part of the planet in your trigger happy beliefs.

Who in their right fucking mind says Nukes are a good idea?
What the fuck are you on? Are you even human? Do you have a fucking brain at all?

Oh and people hate Israel because they have spent about 30 years fucking palestinians over, in case you assumed it was correct to forget that point.

Jesus fucking christ.

[Kelshara]

And I'd argue that you would say something different if you were not from a country that has them

You can't tell me that the existence of nukes causes more wars to occur.

That wasn't what I said now, was it?

[Winnow]

Kim Jong may be smarter then we give him credit for, hes surrounded by enemys and may just be threatening everyone with the nukes to recieve billions of dollars in aid...

No, you're the only one on the planet who hadn't figured that out already and unless we want countries like Libya cranking up their nuclear arms programs again, we won't be giving into nuke threats.

Once you give into any form of terrorism, you can expect that same form of terrorism to increase.

-----
off topic a bit:

BTW, seen any hijackings lately? 911 basically ended that because everyone on board a jet is going to turn into The Last Action Hero if their flight is taken over as they will assume it's a suicide mission even if it isn't.

On the other hand...everyone and their mother calling for Jihads over the past few years has made those a joke as well since nothing has happened.

[Kelshara]

Actually there have been a couple of hijackings Winnow.. just not really made the big news channels in the US. Mostly smaller countries. Not that there were a huge number of hijackings before 9/11 either though heh.

[Aruman]

And I'd argue that you would say something different if you were not from a country that has them

You can't tell me that the existence of nukes causes more wars to occur.

That wasn't what I said now, was it?

No, but it sure looks like that is what you were implying.

If no countries had nuclear capability, the world would be much worse off. Of course, you could argue the same if every developed country had nuclear capability, which I think is the idea behind non-proliferation.

Such weapons shouldn't be in the hands of every country, it would cause many, many problems, and it goes without saying that those problems would be catastrophic.

[Aruman]

Yeah god forbid you so called evolved fuckwits actually ever realise the concept that total human annhilation is a detrimental way of keeping order (and the human race alive).

Only the worst type of hateful ignorant pedant would actually consider your argument valid. Pity there seem to be plenty of you shitbags to keep us occupied.

If you think it's totally irrelevant you are unfortunately seperated from a large part of the planet in your trigger happy beliefs.

Who in their right fucking mind says Nukes are a good idea?
What the fuck are you on? Are you even human? Do you have a fucking brain at all?

Oh and people hate Israel because they have spent about 30 years fucking palestinians over, in case you assumed it was correct to forget that point.

Jesus fucking christ.

Nuclear weapons aren't going to go away, ever.

Nowhere did I say nuclear weapons are a good idea, I think the things are the worst thing to ever come from science so far.

I do believe that controlling who has nuclear weapons is a damn good idea in order to prevent people's worst nightmares concerning such weapons from becoming reality.

[Zaelath]

Nukes are the only thing that could realistically stop China from steamrolling anyone else you care to mention, in about 10-20 years.

Oh, and Star Trek is a fiction.. unless the universe miraculously turns into an all you can eat pizza and salad bar people will always compete for resources.

[Kelshara]

And I'd argue that you would say something different if you were not from a country that has them

You can't tell me that the existence of nukes causes more wars to occur.

That wasn't what I said now, was it?

No, but it sure looks like that is what you were implying.

If no countries had nuclear capability, the world would be much worse off. Of course, you could argue the same if every developed country had nuclear capability, which I think is the idea behind non-proliferation.

Such weapons shouldn't be in the hands of every country, it would cause many, many problems, and it goes without saying that those problems would be catastrophic.

No it wasn't what I implied. I might go as far as saying that the Cold War the way we know it would never have happened, and who knows what would have been better? Would it have been better for us or for the average Russian? Very difficult to prove one way or another when you discuss if's and or's.

I'm not really sure if it would be that much worse if more countries have it. You will still have the "If you dare push the button we will kill every one of your motherfuckers within 10 minutes" threat.

I think it is very easy to sit with the biggest gun and say "It is much better you don't have it!" And honestly, when you hold the gun (and have pulled the trigger twice), do you have a right to say it? That is an argument I've had with myself a lot of times...