So, why shouldn't Iran have a nuclear programme ?

[looney]

The more countries that have nukes the greater the liklihood of one finding a reason to use them hence the non proliferation treaty.

The reason the USA, and russia, are tooled up was because of the arms race which was a defensive strategy and not an agressive one, MAD. The same could not be said for some of the crazies who are seeking nukes these days.


Funny how CND types seem to think its all about the USA, they are the least of our worries.

We have nukes which allows us to punch above our weight in global politics, gives us a seat on the UN security council and helps us promote our aims.

Maybe you would like to see a greater power balance with the islamic world, I wouldn't. they are not interested in parity they want power.

 

[strings]

Hiroshima ring any bells?

Only used as a last resort to finish the war and bring Japan's civilians to it's knees and turn against their emperor, other wise they would have fought to the last man, woman and child.

That is what they want you to believe... there is substantial evidence to suggest that Japan was ready to surrender (without the use of atomic weapons) and the Americans knew that atomic weapons were not needed, but that arguement is for another day.
-----
As for Iran, any nation with nuclear weapons generally has a bigger say in global issues than nations without. Iran isn't particularly rich, so they can't flex their financial muscles on the world stage (like Japan and Germany - who are both big powers with no nuclear weapons). Iran knows that if they can develop nuclear weapons they will in any future diplomatic talks have more leverage to get what they want, especially as they would become an even bigger power in the Middle East.

Given that Israel is almost ceratinly armed with nuclear weapons there could be potential for a huge problem in the Middle East, this is undoubtably what America is worried about. It is also worth bearing in mind that the Jewish lobby are seen as very powerful within US politics. However, having two enemies each with nuclear weapons can sometimes improve relations in the medium-to-long-term. After the Cuban missile crisis relations between the US and Russia actually improved as nobody actually wanted to use nuclear weapons and both sides had scared themselves with how close they came to nuclear war. The same can be said of the nuclear stand-off between India and Pakistan in 2003 - they came close to nuclear war, but it was averted and their relationship has since improved (until recent developments in Kashmir and the Mumbai attacks).

A few people have mentioned the UN security council pernament members and they are right to do so - there is no coincidence that they first five countries to develop nuclear weapons are the five pernament members of the security council.

 

[Dandyman]

That is what they want you to believe... there is substantial evidence to suggest that Japan was ready to surrender (without the use of atomic weapons) and the Americans knew that atomic weapons were not needed, but that arguement is for another day.
-----
As for Iran, any nation with nuclear weapons generally has a bigger say in global issues than nations without. Iran isn't particularly rich, so they can't flex their financial muscles on the world stage (like Japan and Germany - who are both big powers with no nhuclear weapons). Iran knows that if they can develop nuclear weapons they will in any future diplomatic talks have more leverage to get what they want, especially as they would become an even bigger power in the Middle East.

Given that Israel is almost ceratinly armed with nuclear weapons there could be potential for a huge problem in the Middle East, this is undoubtably what America is worried about. It is also worth bearing in mind that the Jewish lobby are seen as very powerful within US politics. However, having two enemies each with nuclear weapons can sometimes improve relations in the medium-to-long-term. After the Cuban missile crisis relations between the US and Russia actually improved as nobody actually wanted to use nuclear weapons and both sides had scared themselves with how close they came to nuclear war. The same can be siad of the nuclear stand-off between India and Pakistan in 2003 - they came close to nuclear war, but it was averted and their relationship has since improved (until recent developments in Kashmir and the Mumbai attacks).

A few people have mentioned the UN security council pernament members and they are right to do so - there is no coincidence that they first five countries to develop nuclear weapons are the five pernament members of the security council.

If Israel was not a strategic asset for the US, do you think they would give a f*ck about the "Jewish Lobby" (it's a Zionist lobby btw).

As for nuking the Nips, if they were so ready to surrender why did they not do it after the first bomb?

 

[User removed 4]

-----
Iran isn't particularly rich, so they can't flex their financial muscles on the world stage (like Japan and Germany - who are both big powers with no nhuclear weapons).

Iran has the second largest oil reserves in the world,the corrupt clergy is VERY rich.

 

[strings]

Iran hs the second largest oil reserves in the world,the corrupt clergy is VERY rich.

I would argue that they have the potential to be very (filthy) rich... they just don't utilise the potentail as well as they could.

 

[folkestonesgull]

Or save the 19 billion and stop putting our army into ridiculous war situations.That'd be a better health service,better education service,and improved expenses for MPs.

Look on any world atlas.Gt Britain is that small island just north of France and it is crazy that such a country should be the world's policemans deputy.

I agree with that - We are still punching way above our weight in the global arena. Whilst this does have some benefits for the economy as a whole I do look to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland etc and see countries where the primary focus of government spending is on helping its own people. With the money these countries save on war/defence they provide better services, give more aid to poorer nations and still can afford to buy any of their UN peacekeepers decent body armour!

I would be far happier if the UK did take a step back, out of the firing line of countries like Iran rather than continuing our post-colonial meddling...

 

[ATFC Seagull]

I agree with that - We are still punching way above our weight in the global arena. Whilst this does have some benefits for the economy as a whole I do look to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland etc and see countries where the primary focus of government spending is on helping its own people. With the money these countries save on war/defence they provide better services, give more aid to poorer nations and still can afford to buy any of their UN peacekeepers decent body armour!

I would be far happier if the UK did take a step back, out of the firing line of countries like Iran rather than continuing our post-colonial meddling...

You've got it with your final sentence though. Said countries (by-and-large) don't have the historical background where they now have to deal with the problems that they have ultimately caused.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

That is what they want you to believe... there is substantial evidence to suggest that Japan was ready to surrender (without the use of atomic weapons) and the Americans knew that atomic weapons were not needed, but that arguement is for another day.
-----
As for Iran, any nation with nuclear weapons generally has a bigger say in global issues than nations without. Iran isn't particularly rich, so they can't flex their financial muscles on the world stage (like Japan and Germany - who are both big powers with no nuclear weapons). Iran knows that if they can develop nuclear weapons they will in any future diplomatic talks have more leverage to get what they want, especially as they would become an even bigger power in the Middle East.

Given that Israel is almost ceratinly armed with nuclear weapons there could be potential for a huge problem in the Middle East, this is undoubtably what America is worried about. It is also worth bearing in mind that the Jewish lobby are seen as very powerful within US politics. However, having two enemies each with nuclear weapons can sometimes improve relations in the medium-to-long-term. After the Cuban missile crisis relations between the US and Russia actually improved as nobody actually wanted to use nuclear weapons and both sides had scared themselves with how close they came to nuclear war. The same can be said of the nuclear stand-off between India and Pakistan in 2003 - they came close to nuclear war, but it was averted and their relationship has since improved (until recent developments in Kashmir and the Mumbai attacks).

A few people have mentioned the UN security council pernament members and they are right to do so - there is no coincidence that they first five countries to develop nuclear weapons are the five pernament members of the security council.

That is 1 paragraph of bizarre historical interpretation with nothing to back it up, followed by 3 paragraphs of stating the bleeding obvious.

 

[strings]

That is 1 paragraph of bizarre historical interpretation with nothing to back it up, followed by 3 paragraphs of stating the bleeding obvious.

3 paragraphs of the bleeding obvious - yes, but it was relevant to the thread and a lot of it had not been said before.

Bizarre historical interpretation - no. There is substantial evidence to suggest that Japan was ready to surrender and there is evidence that the Americans knew of this. I did not say that Japan would have surrendered, I said there was evidence that they were ready to surrender.

What we know:
-Japan had sought a negotiated peace through Russia and through Switzerland before the first atomic bomb was dropped - how do we know this? Because the Americans intercepted the transmissions from the Japanese foreign minister to their envoy to Russia. This is the main piece of evidence - there are a lot more other bits too. The Hiroshhima debate would not still be so hotly debated in academic circles if we knew for definate what went on.

 

[Husty]

Iran ahs every right to create a nuclear energy program, the problem is no one things thats all they want to get out of it, and since they wont provide any evidence to the contrary...

 

[ATFC Seagull]

3 paragraphs of the bleeding obvious - yes, but it was relevant to the thread and a lot of it had not been said before.

Bizarre historical interpretation - no. There is substantial evidence to suggest that Japan was ready to surrender and there is evidence that the Americans knew of this. I did not say that Japan would have surrendered, I said there was evidence that they were ready to surrender.

What we know:
-Japan had sought a negotiated peace through Russia and through Switzerland before the first atomic bomb was dropped - how do we know this? Because the Americans intercepted the transmissions from the Japanese foreign minister to their envoy to Russia. This is the main piece of evidence - there are a lot more other bits too. The Hiroshhima debate would not still be so hotly debated in academic circles if we knew for definate what went on.

Fair play - I didn't expect you to have anything to back it up!

I think you need to remember the difference between "negotiated peace" and "surrender". Prior to Germany's defeat in Europe, Japan had largely achieved a lot of its pre-war goals territory-wise. I think the evidence you point to was it trying to hold onto these in the face of a more prolongued threat following the end of war in Europe.

Circumstancial evidence suggests more that the Japanes were not willing to "surrender", including the staunch resistance in the pacific, the fact (as pointed out on here) that they resisted surrender after the 1st bomb, and the ideology behind their war effort.

Personally, I think the primary motive behind the nukes was as a pre-Cold War warning shot to the USSR.

 

[glasfryn]

We are only allowed to have nuclear weapons because we are the first line of defence for the Americans.
Sabre rattlers the lot of them and there was a time when the yanks were going to allow Sadam to have them ..........I mean who really are the nutters remembering that Ronald Reagan was the president of the USA and had his shaky finger at the ready

 

[strings]

Fair play - I didn't expect you to have anything to back it up!

I think you need to remember the difference between "negotiated peace" and "surrender". Prior to Germany's defeat in Europe, Japan had largely achieved a lot of its pre-war goals territory-wise. I think the evidence you point to was it trying to hold onto these in the face of a more prolongued threat following the end of war in Europe.

There is a difference, I agree - I suppose I was just trying to make the point that there was a clear intent to end the war. And, given that the US knew there was intent to end the war it could be argued that there were other reasons behind their use of the atomic bombs. For the record I don't think they would have surrendered - the politicians wanted to end the war but the military certainly would not have stopped fighting - this is evidenced by the (failed) military coup after the decision to surrender.

Circumstancial evidence suggests more that the Japanes were not willing to "surrender", including the staunch resistance in the pacific, the fact (as pointed out on here) that they resisted surrender after the 1st bomb, and the ideology behind their war effort.

Personally, I think the primary motive behind the nukes was as a pre-Cold War warning shot to the USSR.

I quite agree - also the atomic bomb was the most expensive weapon in history and many senators resented spending all their money on a mystery project - it would have been an awful waste not to have used it!

 

[ATFC Seagull]

We are only allowed to have nuclear weapons because we are the first line of defence for the Americans.
Sabre rattlers the lot of them and there was a time when the yanks were going to allow Sadam to have them ..........I mean who really are the nutters remembering that Ronald Reagan was the president of the USA and had his shaky finger at the ready

Britain has them because they developed them WITH the Americans. In fact, some believe that the Russians may well have beaten the US to it if it wasn't for British scientific involvement. Thats not to say the Americans ever considered Britain their equals in the whole process...

 

[Simster]

Right Im going to cut thru the PC bollox.

Basically Iran and North Korea are ruled by NUTTERS who would think nothing more of pressing the red launch button on a whim, with Pakistan coming a close third.

Thats why. Simple really.

Very unfair on Iran. North Korea is rules by an authoritatarian nut job, but Iran is a democracy of sorts (nominally). Not saying it's perfect, but if it wasn't for the rabid religious nature of that state and their opposition to the Jewish state, I think they'd be allowed to continue more or less free from foreign intervention.

 

[User removed 4]

We are only allowed to have nuclear weapons because we are the first line of defence for the Americans.
Sabre rattlers the lot of them and there was a time when the yanks were going to allow Sadam to have them ..........I mean who really are the nutters remembering that Ronald Reagan was the president of the USA and had his shaky finger at the ready

we developed our own nuclear weapons firstly at a place called aldermaston, the US doesnt "allow" us to have them,are you actually being serious in your statement that " there was a time when the yanks were going to allow saddam to have them"?