leatherhat said:
Kasz216 said:
leatherhat said:
Kantor said:
Jumpin said:
If Iran has to give up its nukes, then the US should give up theirs as well. |
The USA is, at least nominally, a democracy, which has signed the non-proliferation treaty, is not engaged in any wars against a nation, and serves to gain nothing by nuclear bombing its neighbours or, indeed, any other country. Furthermore, it has possessed nuclear weaponry for the last 68 years and has not dropped a nuclear bomb for the last 67. The last time it dropped an atomic bomb, it was engaged in a war which could not possibly be ended any other way (without a great deal of bloodshed on both sides).
Iran is a rogue state which has openly threatened the existence of other states, a dictatorship known for renegade actions, which holds strong grudges against many of its neighbours and feels that its existence is threatened.
There is an enormous difference between the two countries.
|
The best counter example is India/Pakistan which were at each others throats and fought numerous wars before they both became armed- after which they never went to war again because they both know where it would lead. A nuclear armed Iran would lead to a check on Israeli aggresion in the Middle East and a more stable diplomatic Middle East as a whole.
|
That's not actually true. On a few levels.
Pakistan and India both declared nuclear weapons in 1998.
The last Indian/Pakistan war was 1999.
Before that the last war was 1971. So it was 27 years of peace before nuclear weapons, less then 1 year of peace afterwords. (well declared).
Additionally, one of the USA's biggest gripes with Pakistan is how they put all of their military forces on the border with India in an esclation that leaves little room to go with rounding up anti-american terrorists hiding in the country.
What caused the long peace was how devestating a victory India achvied in 1971. Pakistan lost like half it's population, part of it's economy, a third of it's armed forces. There wasn't war for so long simply because Pakistan was beaten.
The nuclear tests of both nations actually could be said to have risen tensions between them and in part led to the 1999 conflict.
|
India got its nukes in the early seventies and the Pakistanis got nukes in the early eighties
|
Still, half the points stand. They have had a war since then, and are paranoid that there will be another one.
The lack of a war since then was due to Pakistan being on lesser footing... and India prefering the current Pakistan government to the hardline one that would replace it.
In the modern era, wars just don't really happen as much in general unless it's one western side that's so far advanced they can beat down on the people who are bothering them with massive force to where the western side tends to lose more people due to human error then they do the enemy.
Well except Civil War.
