Germany doesn't have US bases? Interesting that you mention S Korea. The older (wiser) population remembers what the US did for them and supports a continued US presence to protect them from the nut in the north. The younger population thinks we stand in the way of unification (er..which we do so to speak... ) ...whatever. We're supposed to be worried or change our behaviour when their anger is based on us protecting them? And curious ChrisBosh...where have you been in your travels overseas where you experienced anti_Americanism? Regardless, before you changed it to an Anti-American issue, you claimed that other nations felt personally insecure about the US presence. I still don't see where you've mentioned any. S Korea is independent and we can leave anytime their gov feels that they're not threatened. Same with others that we're in. Fact is, many nations complin about our presence but don't want us to leave because of the stabilizing force. No rational nation will attack a nation where US troops are based and ready to defend. I recall a story here were a Turkish woman was asked whether she supported the US invasion of Iraq. She said no. Then asked whether she considered sadaam a threat and she also said no, 'because if he tried anything the US would beat him down' (to paraphrase). I still find that view enlightening to the difficult spot that the US is in around the world.
Its an arbitrary standard but I'm with bigtexx on this one. There is no reason to have ANY new countries with nuclear weapons. Aside from the fact that nuclear weapons make things more unstable, having a country like Iran who's leadership has would actively use such weapons as a threat to its neighbors would make a volatile Middle East much more unstable. Also, we forget about the extra stuff that results from having a country like Iran get these weapons. 1. They're more likely to start exporting the technology abroad. That means other countries that threaten stability in various parts of the world now have another country that will give them such technology. Things were bad enough when A.Q. Khan of Pakistan was selling nuclear secrets to the highest bidder, but at least they stopped him and Pakistan was at least a US ally. If Iran starts selling secrets, there really is nothing we can do. 2. New nuclear states generally have the worst security when it comes to safety. The possibility of an accidental nuclear launch from countries like Iran that have none of the safety technology like the US (i.e. PAL systems, command hierarchies, early warning system satellites, etc..) make it more likely that an accidental nuclear war could happen. Even if you think they have a right to such weapons, they're still more likely to accidently set off the apocalypse. Nuclear weapons aren't a right, especially when they signed the NPT which effectively signed away their right to any such weapons. The international community has reason to be suspicious and probably monitor the situation to make sure that they don't acquire such weapons. As for that list of countries that support "terrorism," that's a pretty arbitrary list. I trust those group of nations more than I could ever trust Iran. Nuclear weapons are a plague on Earth that have made regions more unstable and I can't think of a single reason as to why bringing more weapons to any region of the world would help at all.
You know what's unstable? The fact that Iran and Israel are at each others throats and one has nuclear weapons while the other doesnt. They arent on an even playing field. It also doesnt help the situation when the US is backing the already stronger force. Thats unstability.
That's unstable? It's been that way for 40 years. It's been stable bacause the country has had nukes all this time is the one threatened by many much larger and more populous nations... it has not threatened to detroy any of them unless it's immediate existence is threatened. That's called defense. You want to see unstable, let some wackos (like Iran's leader) get the bomb.
That doesn't answer the two other reasons why Iran shouldnt get nuclear weapons. 1. They'll sell the tech to other countries. Even if this for some crazy reason might make the region more stable, they'll export the technology to regions that aren't ready to handle the introduction of nuclear weapons. So inevitably, tensions will get worse somewhere else even if its not in this region. 2. Their safety on these weapons will be minimal to non-existant. They don't have access to US safety technology like PAL security systems, early warning satellites, etc.. and as a result are more likely to accidently launch nuclear weapons especially considering they are paranoid as is. Iran would be the very definition of a nuclear state on hair trigger and could conceivably blow someone up on accident because they're so damn scared.
You dont think that Iran feels like it needs to defend itself? Why does this have to be about Iran getting its hands on nuclear weapons and dishing it out to other terrorists? I understand that this is a concern, but I would imagine that if Israel and the US werent such threats to them, then they would be less inclined to take the route they are taking. Also, maybe they dont have the proper safety measures to have a hold of nuclear weapons...but is that really why we are trying to stop them, because we are scared they might accidentally do something wrong? I would also think that if they can build something of this magnitude, then they can somehow come up with some safety measurements.
The US might invade Iran because they're on the path to build nukes. Iran needs the nukes to feel secure against the US invading. Call me crazy but maybe they could just be open and not try to build nukes. Then they wouldn't have to worry about the US invading?
Why? We've already helped orchestrate one coup in their country over oil in the past. We've also declared them an evil country. What reason do they have to believe we wouldn't do so again, even if they were open about nuclear intentions? They saw the difference between how the US treats two countries in the Axis of Evil: Iraq and North Korea. It's quite the lesson that having nukes is substantially better than not.
Its significantly worse for Iran because this isn't just about the US. The EU, for one, is also decrying the steps the Iranians are taking, as is the UNSC. The way to diffuse the situation is to be completely open. No one is saying Iran can't have nuclear power. Further, if the estimates we're hearing now are correct, the Iranians are not days from the bomb, but years. Its arrival will be far too late to stop an intervention. They're playing fire and they might get burned. No matter where you stand on the intervention in Iraq - it proved that playing brinksmanship with this administration is not the brightest idea. Really that's a false portrait of the situation. US strikes were considered long before North Korea disclosed. The simple fact is that NK could have conventionally leveled Seoul making such strikes too costly, which is why they were ruled out. As such NK didn't need nukes to deter the US - that's just PR baloney.
Well, you're partially right and partially wrong there. Legally speaking, Iran and any other country that voluntarily signs the NPT reserves the full right to master the nuclear fuel cycle (i.e. enrichment capability), provided they're done under IAEA supervision. At this point of time, the USA/EU are attempting to get Iran to abandon its legal right to enrich uranium on its own soil, which is in itself a position Iran doesn't have to adhere to. Legally speaking, Iran has the 'law' on its side, while the USA/EU are attempting to essentially void Iran's rights under the NPT and treat them differently than any other NPT-signator. The larger implication here is that this sets an extremely dangerous precedent that essentially nullifies the legitimacy of international agreements/accords, sending a signal that even though you might have signed a document that grants you certain rights in exchange for giving up others, the terms could be changed or altered at any given moment, as long as the 'big dogs' say so...this is also why many sovereign states feel the UN is useless, because they essentially mean nothing and are only useful as a venue from which powerful nations can set the world's agenda. In that case, Iran has nothing to worry about, because they can do much more damage to the world's economy and stability if they strike every oil field in the region in the event of an attack on them, which is a lot more damage than North Korea could bring about by firing missiles at South Korea, which also meant that they would've had to attack the American troops stationed there, which would've meant the declaration of war on the U.S., which would've meant North Korea getting leveled.
iran just wants what any state wants, which is security and any objective analyst would understand iran's position especially vis-a-vis geo-political and geo-strategic realities there is no proof that they're seeking nuclear weapons, those that believe that are falling into the same trap that they fell into in relation to iraq now with the said, the expertise already exists in iran and lets say that they hypothetically decide to go down that path, i think it would be a positive development for the middle east, because it would be a strategic deterrent and bring a balance of power since israel has nukes and has actually threatened to use them in the 1973 arab-israeli war....this ensures that there would be no conflict between the two and it would have a stabilizing effect on the region, which is desperately needed....many prominent political scientists have demonstrated the peace that nukes bring including kenneth waltz
The only reason for any of this controversy is Iran's secret development. 'Legally' Iran gets the benefits of the NPT by following the process. If they don't abide by that process I'm not sure why they get the benefits. You can argue (not you specifically) that the administration has an agenda and 'wants' to invade Iran, but that doesn't work with the EU and the rest of the UNSC. If Iran didn't 'have' anything going on in secret there wouldn't be any problem. And again its important to note that no one is saying Iran can't have nuclear power, the objection is to their process. I don't think their missle technology is advanced enough to destroy oil fields en masse, but again as I pointed out the whole 'they need nukes to defend themselves from the US' line is bunk for the reasons I pointed out.
the facts in particular the india-pakistan comaprison validate his argument however.....4 wars before nukes....0 after
