Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Iran is party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If they pull out, they could "rightfully" build nuclear weapons. The problem? They have consistently claimed their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. To pull out now would call their bluff. They backed their ownselves into a corner, and they may just get an answer from Israel because of it.
Iran has the right to do anything they damn well please as far as weapons systems go within their own country. They very well might be in violation of treaties. (I never claimed they were more ethical than the USA which violates treaties all the time) So what????
It would still be against International Law to attack them without being attacked first and without UN approval.
The U.S. has missiles capable of hitting Iran, should Iran have the right to attack the U.S.?
Russia has missiles capable of hitting the U.S. should the U.S. have the right to attack Russia?
India has missiles capable of hitting Pakistan, should Pakistan have the right to attack India?
China has missiles capable of hitting Taiwan, should Taiwan have the right to attack China?
Your neighbor has a gun, do you have the right to shoot your neighbor?
In each of the above cases the answer is, obviously, no.
If you follow the logic, the capability of another to harm you is unjustified under any reasoning of any law that exists between persons or nations, absent a clear and present imminent threat.
The U.S. has missiles capable of hitting Iran, should Iran have the right to attack the U.S.?
Russia has missiles capable of hitting the U.S. should the U.S. have the right to attack Russia?
India has missiles capable of hitting Pakistan, should Pakistan have the right to attack India?
China has missiles capable of hitting Taiwan, should Taiwan have the right to attack China?
Your neighbor has a gun, do you have the right to shoot your neighbor?
In each of the above cases the answer is, obviously, no.
If you follow the logic, the capability of another to harm you is unjustified under any reasoning of any law that exists between persons or nations, absent a clear and present imminent threat.
It's pretty simple concept actually.
I agree with you. The concept of Iran having nuclear weapons in itself does not bother me (but does not comfort me) because we all know that should Iran pull the trigger it will become the world's largest man-made lake. What is bothersome is that Iran cannot be trusted to keep that technology secret and out of rogue hands, thus lending credibility to the effort to keep Iran from having nuclear capability.
Why should the US get involved in a war between Israel and Iran? We have too many wars going on already and unlike our agreements with Japan, South Korea and the NATO alliance we have no mutual defense treaty with Israel.
The U.S. has missiles capable of hitting Iran, should Iran have the right to attack the U.S.?
Russia has missiles capable of hitting the U.S. should the U.S. have the right to attack Russia?
India has missiles capable of hitting Pakistan, should Pakistan have the right to attack India?
China has missiles capable of hitting Taiwan, should Taiwan have the right to attack China?
Your neighbor has a gun, do you have the right to shoot your neighbor?
In each of the above cases the answer is, obviously, no.
If you follow the logic, the capability of another to harm you is unjustified under any reasoning of any law that exists between persons or nations, absent a clear and present imminent threat.
It's pretty simple concept actually.
The U.S. has missiles capable of hitting Iran, should Iran have the power to attack the U.S.?
Russia has missiles capable of hitting the U.S. should the U.S. have the power to attack Russia?
India has missiles capable of hitting Pakistan, should Pakistan have the power to attack India?
China has missiles capable of hitting Taiwan, should Taiwan have the power to attack China?
Your neighbor has a gun, do you have the power to shoot your neighbor?
If you follow the logic . . you end up with the precept of the 2nd Amendment.
Iran is party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If they pull out, they could "rightfully" build nuclear weapons. India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea are not parties to the Treaty, and they all have nuclear weapons. The problem? Iran has consistently claimed their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. To pull out now would call their bluff. Had they been forthright and backed out of the Treaty and commenced to buidling nuclear weapons, there would be little the world could do. Instead, they are under the control of a treaty they signed, thus breaking they law. They backed themselves into a corner, and they may just get an answer from Israel because of it.
I agree with you. The concept of Iran having nuclear weapons in itself does not bother me (but does not comfort me) because we all know that should Iran pull the trigger it will become the world's largest man-made lake. What is bothersome is that Iran cannot be trusted to keep that technology secret and out of rogue hands, thus lending credibility to the effort to keep Iran from having nuclear capability.
Same with absolutely any other country that has nuclear weapons. For god's sake look at Pakistan, they're getting overrun by Al Qaeda, who knows what's possible but there ya go.
Iran cannot be trusted to keep that technology secret and out of rogue hands, thus lending credibility to the effort to keep Iran from having nuclear capability.
I don't disagree that persuading the Iranians from having nuclear weapons isn't the right course of action, we just don't need more nuclear states. In fact we don't need any.
As for being able to trust Iran... perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong but I have a vague sense that nuclear materials are somewhat traceable just like any other type explosive device even after detonation. If that is the case, even Iran, would be more than reluctant to pass on nuclear materials as a result of having the same realization of what the consequences would be. Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think that Iran's leadership is insane or irrational when it comes to their own self-interest or survival.
If you follow the logic . . you end up with the precept of the 2nd Amendment.
A tangential issue and at best, since the discussion is about justification for the use of deadly force not the capability of having it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
