Kasz216 said:
Nucleaer waepons are so strong and dangerous that they should be limited only to large countries who are stable and have the means to protect them. Well nations like that shouldn't even have them either but you can't really take nuclear weapons from someone once they get them... because they have nuclear weapons.
A country like Iran, that's small, specific terrorist affiliations and always on the bring of a popular revolution of younger people is just a disaster waiting to happen.
The type that totally wouldn't blink an eye of detonating one in the center of London or Germany.
Every nation like Iran and Pakistan are dangerous time bombs waiting to go off... that by the way, would totally cause way more intervention for reasons that are less solid.
For example... Syria. If they had nucelear weapons. NATO would be in syria right now securiing them. Possibily even fighting on the side of the government.
When the Iranian lineral democratic movement happens, if they have weapons, you may find the UK in Iran supressing democracy. For fear of not being able to account for their nukes. |
Look on this from another side. If Syria had nuclear weapons, then USA/Europe would be afraid to support terrorists/rebels and the civil war in Syria will be killed in the very start, 2 years ago.
Just like North Korea. Since they had Nuclear Weapons only thing left for West to do is 'sanctions'. Maybe this is the reason we still didn't had a 'yellow' revolution in North Korea yet?
