By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
highwaystar101 on 17 July 2012
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
Less stable countries than Iran have nuclear programmes. I often feel Iran get an unfair press with regards to that. If we were to prioritise then surely non-signatory countries who already possess nuclear weapons, like Pakistan or India, would be higher on the list of who to deal with.

I often feel it would be better to deal with Iran by initiating discussions towards a transparency agreement. The international community would allow them to conduct limited research and development, granted they remain signatories of the non-proliferation treaty. If they do build weapons, they would have to under the strict supervision of nuclear ready states and even as part of NATO's sharing programme so their weapons aren't strictly "theirs" (even though they're not a NATO state).

If they are indeed building nuclear weapons and we don't do that, then the alternatives (hostility, alienation, etc) could force them to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty. We don't want that with any nation.

(I should also say that I am not well read on this subject at all, so I could be very wrong)

India is a lot more stable then Iran, and again, they already have nukes.  It's not like they're just trying to get them.

Your arguement is highly flawed though.  I mean say you have one ambassador who you can't arrest because he has diplomatic immunity (Pakistan already having nukes) and he LOVES to drunk drive.

Does that mean we should let everybody drunk drive.... just because there is one guy who is a bigger threat who can get away with it?

I agree, my argument is highly flawed. Allowing them into a sharing program with the likes of Germany and Turkey (and at no point should they "possess" them) is absurd, it's a "Better the devil you know" solution.

I suppose in very specific and highly unlikely cases my solution may work. Using your analogy. Unlike Pakistan, the diplomat (now Iran) would still have to abide by the law. The difference is that he can drink, but we can take away his keys if he tries to drive because it's against the law. By no means is it a free ticket to drink and drive. But that is assuming that he is going to attempt to drive after drinking anyway. The better solution is to just not let him drink, so he can't even attempt to break the law to begin with.

It doesn't matter anyway, as Rath quite rightly pointed out that would break the treaty anyway. I think I just got excited by an ill-explored alternative.