Kasz216 said:
the2real4mafol said:
Fair enough, but who are we to say they can't have nuclear weapons if they wanted? Especially when we have them. That's what the issue is ultimately about with Iran, most likely
|
|
Common sense.
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.
Imagine for example if Syria had nuclear weapons. Syria could totally lose those weapons to the rebels. Who include extreme terrorist groups.
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. We would be fighting with Assad if he had nukes, if we intervened in that alternate universe.
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. History does repeat itself if this happens! Think of the 1953 coup
|
