The sad thing is, this guy is absolutely right. The US has reserved the right to a nuclear first strike for years. We're digging our own graves here.
Sure, let Iran, or any other 3rd world, radical, US hating country develop nukes, pass them right along to any terrorist organization that comes by, and see how you feel when Houston, NY, San Fran, or any other major city is devastated by a nuke. If these 3rd world s**tholes want to fight amongst themselves, let them do it the old fashioned way. Nukes in their control is just asking for trouble.
So what would you do about it? Just because we are a responsible nation does not give us the right to tell others how to run their country. And for the record we are the only country to ever Nuke another one. DD
Yeah, we used them when we had a sane democracy. Imagine if you had an insane dictorship bent on destruction of us as the ultimate "Satan" Of course, I guess some people think Iran's right to get nukes is more important then stopping Iran from nuking millions of people and starting WWIII
I wouldn't object to bombing the nuke sights, but I'd oppose an outright invasion. I don't believe that the mindset of that region is going to change, no matter what-they'll remain anti-US/Christian/Jew/West. Us leaving them completely alone won't prevent them from trying another attack, directly or indirectly. Iran openly wants to destroy Israel, which I think should be able to fend for itself (they've got our military technology to an extent, and have bombed Iraq's nuke sites in the past). But, if Israel fell under nuclear attack, what would prevent the US from being targeted as well? I'm sure their are plenty of Islamic fanatics that would be willing to do whatever is necessary to sneak a bomb into the US. The supply of those bombs needs to be snuffed before they can be used. These people are on a religious mission, not seeking to improve their way of life, but to stomp out the infidels. They don't care about dying. We haven't used Nukes since WW2. As for our bombing Japan, they drug us into WW2. Stakes are high in an open WORLD WAR, and an abrupt end was the best option. The nukes were used, and displayed, and hopefully will never need to be used again. A country intent on conquering other countries by waging war, is opening themselves up to maximum retaliation, imo. Would you fault a person for clubbing you with a bat, if you were intent on killing him with your bare hands? Many in China are greatful for the Japanese stomping. Japan was ravaging the people of China. The "rape of Nanking", was atrocious, the forgotten holocaust. The world doesn't need more threats to mass populations, and countries need to step up the pressure when needed. I fear that most will simply sit back and let the US worry about it all, and criticise whatever we do or don't do.
We don't necessarily know where the nuke sites are. A lot are supposedly underground, under civilian sites. So if we can't bomb them, you're then OK with them having nukes? The question is dumb. No one wants them to have nukes. The question is how far are people willing to go to stop them if they do choose to pursue them.
Just for point of reference, there are and have been countries/leaders/movements that seek utter destruction and exhibit supreme hatred towards others. I ask you this: Does the United States seek any of this for ANY people on this planet? What countries would you believe have that potential? Take a look: WARNING: GRAPHIC, NSFW http://www.tribo.org/nanking/ http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects/ChinaHistory/rape.html (pics at bottom) Index of 20th Century Genocide http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/index.html http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/12.12.96/cover/china1-9650.html Video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4920138942953644691&q=rape+of+nanking The Jewish Holocaust is well-known as well.
It's a tough situation when all the facts aren't known. I'd hate to be saying in the future, "we should have done something a long time ago, and this would never have happened". Send spys to gather info, sabbotage, whatever.
i think every nations should be provided with nuclear weapons, therefore nobody will attack one another.
Not really. A child should not be allowed to play video games instead of doing their homework. That doesn't mean I'm willing to break the child's fingers to stop them. Yet I would still vote no to him playing video games if he doesn't do his homework. I'm really not voting yes, as you suggest. No they should not be allowed to. As has been pointed out, it is restricted by a treaty of which they are a party too. If they withdraw from that treaty, they should be pressured not to, but it would be their right. I'm not even saying the credible threat of force should be removed, but their should restrictions on what kind of force to use, when to use it, who would use it, and what kind of definitive proof would be needed before using it.
Do you honestly believe that some dictator wouldn't use it at some point? Perhaps a hate filled religious fanatic would bomb someone from his death bed, and start a massive conflict, in the name of his god. You can't trust the uncivilized world, and even some of the civilized.
That is a different question than was asked. But I would say, in response to your question, we should step in to discourage them.
No Islamic country should possess any weapon of mass destruction. Theocracy is a threat to democracy.
Thank goodness...best decision by Truman!...Too bad neither side of the political fence can offer such a leader like that right now...
