So, Separate yourself from whether or not you believe that the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites was good or bad or proper. Separate yourself from the way it was gone about. Separate yourself from whether Israel is the puppet master in the Middle East. I have one very simple question for all of you, and yes or no is the answer I'm looking for. Very simple question. Should Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons? Just yes or no.
The answer is NO if the question were that simple. But the question is not simple. It is as complicated as the one we faced in 2001. Should Iraq be allowed to have WMD??
Anyone who is not deterred by the threat of mutually assured destruction should never have weapons capable of reaching beyond their own borders. The ideal solution is to continually advance our own weaponry as to neutralize the threat beyond that countries borders. The less than ideal solution is to take over said country.
Yes is the simple answer. They are a sovereign nation. We can't tell them what to or not to do. That said, we shouldn't want any further nuclear proliferation. The more people have them, the higher the odds they will eventually be used. I think using diplomacy to prevent it, is 100% in everyone's best interest. Unfortunately I believe we are now closer to the use of a nuclear bomb in the near future.
No. If I was Israel I would go to the last extremity and hazard everything to prevent it. I am happy the United States is acting to help prevent it.
"Should Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons?" No. No nation, including the US, should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are an existential risk to humanity. No nation should have them.
They're here bro. That's like the make guns illegal argument Can't back in time and it would be nice to peace deal them away but countries who don't get along aren't going to d that
So we gonna negotiate with Russia and China to get rid of nuclear weapons.? That's the optimistic realistic outlook? Edit: excuse me, winning outlook
Exactly. Anyone answering NO needs to be equally committed to disarmament everywhere, starting with existing nuclear powers. If you're not actively pushing for the US, Russia, China, etc. to give up their arsenals, then you're not really opposed to nuclear weapons - you're just opposed to certain countries having them. That's not a principled position on nuclear policy; it's selective enforcement based on geopolitics. Either nuclear weapons are an unacceptable existential threat that no one should possess, or we accept we're living in a MAD world where deterrence applies to everyone. Since we are, by default, living in a MAD world, the answer is YES - Iran should have nuclear power. There won't be war because of it. And if there is one, well, those are the consequences of clinging to nukes and being unwilling to give them up.
Yes If we can have them then who's to say we should tell others No, I might not like it but the ketchup`s out of the bottle
Yes, they must obtain nukes as a deterrent from the belligerent occupying state that exists in their region.
