Why Should Iran Disarm ?

NPT states that you agree to not manufacutre any weapons of mass destruction and that you over a time decreases the arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

Iran is manufacturing new weapons, USA is ceeping their old weapons they already have, slowly decreasing the arsenal of these, same thing Russia is doing.

I do see your point, and i think its quite a two sided opinion.

Was some time since i last read the NPT though.
 
why countries like America should be allowed to hold on to their nuclear weapons where as they want Iran to disarm, especially since both have signed up to the NPT
Click to expand...

Because the USA is not a exteme fumdamentalist theocracy that is actively supporting terror?
 
USA is ceeping their old weapons they already have, slowly decreasing the arsenal of these,
Click to expand...

After the war in Iraq the US found there bunker busters weren't as effective as they hoped, so they took the next logical step. There strapping nukes to the front of them. This was a big campaign issue in 04 election.

Not saying i disagree with this step, but we are developing and building new nuclear weapons to add to our aresnal. I think the reason is more along the lines of Shermans statement.
 
SHERMAN said:
why countries like America should be allowed to hold on to their nuclear weapons where as they want Iran to disarm, especially since both have signed up to the NPT
Click to expand...

Because the USA is not a exteme fumdamentalist theocracy that is actively supporting terror?
Click to expand...

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY.

Now, before all the knee-jerk-non-reading people overreact to this I feel I must preface this query with a disclaimer... I am not disputing anyone's opinion about whether or not Iran is involved in any way shape or form illegal activities of any sort.
Clear?
Now...
Are there any sources making a claim in regards to this idea that Iran is actively involved in funding or supporting terror, that do NOT have a vested interest, ie Israel, the US etc but rather an at least moderately impartial source?
 
Bulldog,

Iran is known for it's links with hizballah, one of the worlds most hardcore terrorist groups. The meaning of a nuclear weapon in Hizballah hands is a total nuclear war in the Middle East and possibly the world.
 
Right, I know the conventional wisdom on this, I am just asking from whence the claims came and has any "third party" also made similar claims based on its own intelligence? Where I live now there isn't a lot of information available to me except what is on the net, just asking if there are some credible disinterested parties that have posted info about Iran. That's all.
 
Rabs said:
USA is ceeping their old weapons they already have, slowly decreasing the arsenal of these,
Click to expand...

After the war in Iraq the US found there bunker busters weren't as effective as they hoped, so they took the next logical step. There strapping nukes to the front of them. This was a big campaign issue in 04 election.

Not saying i disagree with this step, but we are developing and building new nuclear weapons to add to our aresnal. I think the reason is more along the lines of Shermans statement.
Click to expand...

Then I see no point, chacing others for developing something they develop them selfs disrespecting the rules them self. :roll:
 
Bulldogg,

The Iranis arnt even denieing it. They and the Syrians have supported and are supporting Hizballah.
 
Lets not forget, there have been success stories involving the NPT. South Africa, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have all been in a position to develop a nuclear weapons arsenal. All of them willingly gave into international pressure and gave up those weapons programs.

That treaty is pretty old, but I still believe that it has great relevance to us today. The way things are going now ... Lets take the non-nation nation of Taiwan. That's an island living in constant fear of invasion every day of its existence. Obviously, much moreso than Iran typically faces. Taiwan can just point at Iran and ask the simple question: "If they can have nukes and break the NPT, why can't we?" South Korea and Japan can certainly ask the same thing. "If NK and Iran are free to break the Treaty, why not us?" In South Korea's case, the world community is asking a helluva a lot from them by holding them to the NPT and allowing their hostile neighbor to the north break it.

The greater question is this: Should there be something done to enforce the NPT or should we tear the Treaty up and say to hell with it. Ultimately, do we still value the idea of Nonproliferation?
 
I think its redicules to expect countries not to develop means of self protection. I dont expect Iran to disarm themselves, I know they wont. Other nations who know the meaning of a nuclear armed Iran should disarm the Iranis by any means.
 
SHERMAN said:
I think its redicules to expect countries not to develop means of self protection. I dont expect Iran to disarm themselves, I know they wont. Other nations who know the meaning of a nuclear armed Iran should disarm the Iranis by any means.
Click to expand...

I agree, Iran with nukes is only something you can see in your nightmares..
 
discourse said:
it questions why countries like America should be allowed to hold on to their nuclear weapons where as they want Iran to disarm
Click to expand...

How shit of a PR department do we have as Americans have when the citizens of the very countries we helped liberate from oppression 60 years ago consider us on the same level as Iran?
 
The biggest underlying problem with an Iran armed with nuclear weapons: Well, none of their neighbors trust them all that much. If Iran gets nukes, every nation in the region will rush to develop their own nukes so Iran doesn't have a card to play against them that they don't have as well. The idea of "brotherhood of Islam" wears pretty thin in reality and none of the predominantly Muslim countries in the region really trust any of the other predominantly Muslim nations completely. The scary part about it is that this adds yet another several nation with nukes, so the odds of a nuclear exchange between nations of the world goes up dramatically.

Incidently, that is precisely why the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was made: In theory, the few nations possessing nukes, the less likely that there would be a nuclear holocaust triggered by a "whoops" situation. Take what almost happened with the Russian K-19. It's nuclear reactor almost detonated right on top of a NATO base. There would have been no way of distinguishing this from an intentional strike, and the USSR and USA and all their allies would have merrily destroyed the world right then and there.

Now that is the concept of the NPT. It is also equally easy to argue that nobody nukes their enemy if the enemy can nuke them back and that logic is very hard to argue with.
 
godofthunder you just don't get it man with all this 'logic' and 'reason' you speak of.

It's simple, if pure dark nasty evil imperialist America has nukes than surely a nation as benign as Iran can have nukes. And if you disagree then you're just another arrogant American and I'm better than you.
 
This is not a matter of mrale. This is a simple matter of intrests. Israel simply cannot live with a nuclear armed Iran, and either can the USA. It would make the implementation of US foreighn policy in the ME impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top