>Is it right for Iran to arm itself? Posted on April 18, 2010 by thebigqs 24 comments >If not then should other countries with nuclear weapons dis-arm? Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading... Related Ethics International Relations Philosophy Politics & Society
>I guess they'd better, considering they're anti-semitic. Numby
>I think I heard that Hitler was also Jewish…but it's not uncommon for self-haters to take the most action against their own kind. I suppose it's a form of "reparation" for them. Generally semitic race doesn't include Iran… Numby
>A theocracy should not have the ability to blow up the world.Paul Ket
>Should any country have the ability to blow up the world Paul? Are you saying that because Iran is a theocracy it shouldn't have the nuke and yet because Israel formally defines itself as a secular state it should be allowed them?Numby and Harvey, yes it is possible that both Hitler and Ahmadinejad had/have Jewish ancestry (in a racial sense). However neither of them themselves have any reliigious affiliations with Judaism.Yet you raise an interesting point, that Iran's government feels itself to be at war with Israel. A war in which one side has nuclear weapons and the other does not must be very frightening for those Iranians who doubt Israel's intentions. Hence there is an argument for Iran getting nuclear weapons merely to act as a deterrent and 'balance of power'. What do you think about that?
>"Should any country have the ability to blow up the world Paul? Are you saying that because Iran is a theocracy it shouldn't have the nuke and yet because Israel formally defines itself as a secular state it should be allowed them?"Yup, and Ahmadinejad saying that Israel should be completely wiped out, also disqualifies him and Iran. Israel needs to protect itself from a lot of hostile countries,.. who does Iran need to protect itself from? Paul Ket
>If we're talking nuclear, than no. The less countries that have access to nukes, the better. Israel shouldn't even have them to be perfectly honest.People have to understand that there has only been two nuclear detonations used in live combat in the history of the world. There's a reason for that. It's not a power to be taken lightly. Ever.Giving two countries who are paranoid about each other nuclear missiles is like like giving two children live hand grenades to play with. Look at the Cold War between the US and the Russians. That was quite possibly one of the most dangerous wars never fought.If two powers like the United States and Russia have reason to back down in the face of nuclear strike, you should understand that nuclear weapons are not toys.Yes, the US used them in one war. Once. And I believe I speak for most of the nation when I say I hope it will never happen again, anywhere. Clockworkkitten
>Paul, Iran could say they need to defend themselves against Israel. But they would be more likely to use the argument that it would act as a deterrent to make Israel re-think it's aggresive foreign policy (the 'Iron Wall' approach). They would also use the argument of hypocrisy. If you say that Iran has no one to defend themselves against then you could say the same thing to the US, UK, France, China, Russia etc. Also, the Iranian authorities dispute the claim that he ever said he wanted Israel wiped off the map. Of course he does. But they say that if you put the comment into context he was not being as aggresive as he was made out to be.Clockworkkitten has a much better argument, that no state should have nuclear weapons. The problem with this though is it's not realistic. Britain, France and North Korea may give them up at a push (and a difficult one at that) but can you imagine the other countries doing the same? Even if everyone did, it takes little time to develop them. Hence if one or two nations retained the abilities we would simply shift the balance of power.I think that we need to give all countries a nuclear deterrent and at the same time ensure that no country can fire one. Basically I think that we should create a special body within the UN to manage the stockpile of the world's nuclear weapons. This would provide all nations, through the vote of the General Assembly, with the power of nuclear weaponary. Yet one nation would never be able to wield that power alone. We would keep costs low by pooling them, provide safety to all, avoid the risks of nuclear war resting in the hands of one person, and maintain the use of an effective world deterrent.
>Iran has the same rights as any other sovereign nation which is to have borders, a government of their choice and the right and ability to defend themselves. Iran also has the right to pretend there is no country named Israel and to say all sorts of things about Israel doing things, real or imagined, even though they won't admit the country exists in the first place. (That's a tough job). However, Iran is responsible for their actions like any other country. If Iran chooses to threaten or attack another country, either directly or through proxies, then they will be held responsible and will have to deal with the consequences.Iran also has to deal with the facts of life; not everybody agrees with them and sometimes, cultural aspects of their life will be criticized and occasionally mocked by outsiders.Comdot
>Israel stocking nukes just to own the behind wall. So why not Iran have it as well? considering if Iran is just like Baghdad or Palestine, US and Israel maybe bombarded them long ago.Myfundarkside
>Not quite sure how to reply to those last two. Comdot, you managed to say a lot without saying anything at all. That is, what you wrote could be interpreted in defence of both sides of the argument. Could you clarify whether or not your in favour of allowing Iran to arm?Myfundarkside, I'm not sure what you meant by your reference to the Wailing Wall. Though you seem to be saying that Iran should be allowed to arm so that it is able to aquire the deterrent. Why don't you agree that the UN holding all nuclear weaponary would achieve this?
>myfundarkside I like your fun dark side :If Israel was stocking nukes just to own the behind wall then it should be happy now as it's got it already. Unfortunately, the Zionist ambition is much bigger. It's drawn on their flag. The David star representing the "Jewish people", the two bands represent the two rivers the Furat and the Nile. So Israel doesn't have nukes just to keep the wall but rather to realize her huge project of occupying the whole land between the two rivers from Iraq to Egypt. Of course, the first step is to wipe out Palestine from the map which seems to be almost achieved. Maydayfreeman
>Rob, Iran is allowed to arm itself for defense like any other country. What you are saying without saying, is "Why can't Iran have a nuclear bomb?". To paraphrase a famous line "We are bloggers of action, lies do not become us".Answer one – Not every nation has a nuclear bomb. Officially, the US, Russia, China, France, the UK, India, and Pakistan have the bomb. There are over 180 countries on earth, but only 7 officially have the bomb. Israel is "assumed" to have the bomb but because no IAEA officials have inspected their facilities, it cannot be proven. So it has become the stuff of legend and held up by the Israel's enemies as cause for their own nuclear armament. (Note – don't post a bunch of website URL with "proof" of Israel's atomic weapons. I know all about Project Sampson, the South Africans and all the rest. The question is about Iran). Answer two – Iran has been difficult and recalcitrant with the world regarding its nuclear ambitions. If Iran wants a nuclear weapon, than President Ahmadinejad should act like a grown man and say so and make a clear case for his reasons. He should present evidence that Israel, China, the US, Russia or any other nuclear armed country is a threat to Iran and that having an adequate response is necessary to his nation's defense and survival. Instead, he makes wild claims, proposes conspiracy theories and acts indignant and defiant towards the entire civilized world. He thinks he is cool, but he sounds like an idiot. Answer three – I don't know why nations do this, but if Iran wants a bomb so bad, why doesn't it just build one? Why dilly dally around with international approval and support? Economic sanctions? Iran has a massive amount of oil and sooner or later, sanctions or not, someone will come offering to buy it so economic actions won't have much long term effect against Iran. Perhaps the problem is Iran does not have the ability to build one and needs parts, expertise and assistance from other nations. That being the case, Iran is not eligible for a nuclear weapon no more than a seven year old should be allowed to build, own and operate an automobile. Or perhaps, Iran is afraid that some other country will attack them if they build a bomb. In that case, I go back to my original sentiment – When countries choose courses of action, they are responsible for the consequences. Comdot
>Maydayfreeman, I don't think any Israeli officials seriously hope to create a Middle Eastern empire today. Though if you have evidence then by all means share it..Comdot, "Why can't Iran have the bomb?" and "Is it right for Iran to arm itself?" are different questions and I did mean the second. The thing is that what is right relies upon what is possible. How can the right decision be an impossible one?Your answer one is not an answer unless your answer is that certain countries have the right to nuclear weaponary and others don't. If this is your answer then surely you must argue that other nations should be entitled to arm themselves as they grow? Answer 2: "If Iran wants a nuclear weapon, than President Ahmadinejad should act like a grown man and say so and make a clear case for his reasons". … Um… right. So if they do Israel and the US will just say "well ok that's fine then go ahead" right? I'm sure you know fully well that Iran could never produce any such "evidence" of another country being threatening enough to justify nuclear weapons that would be admissable with the UN Security Council.Answer 3: It takes a lot of time, money and resources to build a nuclear bomb that can be succesfully fitted onto a submarine, ballistic missile or other such delivery device. This is especially so if you're trying to hide what you're doing. However it is fairly certain that Iran has gotten hold of Pakistani plans and has over the past ten, 20 or even more years been working by these plans.Economic sanctions also always have an impact, especially to countries as relatively economically weak as Iran. The reason they should not use such sanctions is because they hit innocent people on the ground. But they do work.P.S. On Israel I don't need to post up proof. Pretty much every academic in the world believes Israel has them. I think that speaks for itself.
>Translation of an excerpt from an interview in the book "Irak, la faute" (Iraq, the mistake) with retired General Pierre-Marie Gallois, father of the French nuclear programme and heralded geopolitician."As long as you don’t put a country in a state of spasm, the non utilization of nuclear weapons imposes itself. This rivalry between NATO and the Warsaw Pact lasted for forty years, and never – this is something that is little know – never has peace been so well assured. At the time of the Cuban crisis, many thought, including the governments, that we were on the brink of a nuclear conflict. This is perfectly absurd. When there is a state of tension between two nuclear powers, it is precisely the moment when its non utilization is the most evident, for on both sides all precautions are taken; the submarines are out at sea, missiles are in launch mode, all the radar personnel are in full alert; this it is the moment when there is zero chance of destroying preemptively the armament of the ennemy. It is a paradox, but that’s the way it is. The use of nuclear armement is conceivable only against a country in a state of anarchy where another country manages to destroy the nuclear arsenal by surprise and preemptively, to be assured that it will not befall it. In practice, these circumstances never occur. Fifty years after the facts, people still haven’t understood this and governments use this to their advantage. For example, the Kennedy administration, at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, understood quite rapidly that a nuclear conflict was inconceivable, but it imagined taking advantage of the situation politically, by making public opinion believe that the conflict would be averted thanks to its talent! All Kennedys declarations, and especially those of his brother, confirm this huge political fraud. To get back on the subject of Iraq, if it came to possess nuclear armament and was face to face with Iran or Israel, the situation would be no different than between Russia and America, between China and Russia between India and Pakistan, etc." Harvey
>No one needs who doesn't have them needs nukes for their own self-defense anymore. Most countries with nukes would launch if they detected a ICBM leaving the atmosphere – you need to get those missiles off the ground before someone hits any of your silos. We have enough Nuclear armed nations at this point, the book should be closed both for theocracies like Iran and also for democratic countries like Japan, South Korea, Germany and Sweden, though I have no problem with any country developing ABM (ability to shoot down nukes.) Jeremy
>I'm not encouraging Iran to nuclear arm itslef, but the truth is the world is a more dangerous place if only one regional power has these arms. Plus, Iran has never been an agressor in its long history. Harvey
>I actually believe Ahmadin–whatever when he says he needs energy and/or electric industry for Iran because they have so many sanctions against them…Nukes are just a bonus Numby
>People have offered to provide it for them though. Also, China and Afghanistan haven't sanctioned against them, so they're not hurting as much as you might think. Jeremy
>They have lax everything and a large reason is internationally-imposed povertyEdit: The real issue is that they are a satellite of Russia Numby
>Iran's not really that poor though. They have a high rate of unemployment, but a lot of that has to do with state imposed kleptocratic monopolies rather the the international community. People who have jobs though are generally pretty well provided for from what I've gathered from my Iranian friends.Jeremy
>Iran a third world? No social systems, defense or wealth comparable to the west Numby
>Harvey, that quote from General Pierre-Marie Gallois is ludicrous! We all know nuclear weapons have a deterring effect. Yet to say that because two nuclear powers have not yet warred against each other they never will is just pure stupidity. Kennedy did not act as he did due to the knowledge that Krushchev would stand down. He acted as he did due to brinkmanship. He hoped Krushchev would stand down and took a gamble on that. What if Krushchev had had Kennedy's persistence? What if the next such crisis takes place between two leaders with mental instability? We do not know nuclear weapons will deter every war.Jeremy, that is the current dominant argument (that those who have them have them, we can't let any more countries have them as well). The problem is that it is remarkably beneficial to the existing status quo don't you think? It's hypocritical and cannot be accepted as an argument for any more than a finite space of time.Harvey, Iran has been hugely aggressive to Sunni Muslims, Bahaists, Israel, the US, Iraq (border disputes prior to the Iran-Iraq War)… should I go on?I'd like to hear some responses to my idea of working toward an international agreement to pool all nuclear stockpiles with the UN. Does anyone have any objections?
>Ok so far I've been copying and pasting because everyone commented on another forum but the number of comments has just hit 60 so I think I'll let you check out the link yourselves:http://www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/is-it-right-for-iran-to-arm-itself#comment_1311301Feel free to add new comments here though.