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

[itszamora]

We could make a start by scrapping the £19 billion (or whatever it is) renewal of the out of date, cold war style trident system that even the army consider pointless for modern warfare and buy our soldiers some decent body armour...

Fair point, although it's the Navy rather than Army that's in control of our nukes. With things as they are I would quite like us to retain our own deterrent rather than having to rely on Uncle Sam for that too, though I agree that it seems silly to spend such a vast amount of money on something that will hopefully be decomissioned ten years or so after it comes into service.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Does chinese and micowaves come to mind

Ah there you go. see if a proper risk assessment had been carried out, safety shoes would definitely have been standard issue as would ear defenders for the good citizens of Icklesham, warning notice on microwave and said Chinese and a major incident could have avoided.

Lessons have been learnt and can be seen itemised on the Morning Meeting minutes issued from the Sunday meeting. A follow up "wash-up" meeting is planned to discuss any further issues or worries as determined from the previous minutes. Please note these will have to be notified prior to the meeting at the pre-meet meeting so as amend the agenda herewith attached but open to alteration.

Please appreciate the urgency required therefore I have taken the decision to hold pre-meet with immediate affect in the South of France with the "wash-up" meeting to convene as soon as possible after in Barbados.

(sums up my life as H & S manager at BA Engineering LGW in the distant past)

 

[1066familyman]

It's a valid point. What makes the west so much more 'right' and able to dictate what the rest of the world should and should not be able to do?

To be fair to the five permanent members of the UN security council, they do let ten other countries play for two years at a time then let everyone else vote to see who replaces the ten for their turn for the next two years and so on and so on.

All very fair I'd say

 

[pyi]

Ah there you go. see if a proper risk assessment had been carried out, safety shoes would definitely have been standard issue as would ear defenders for the good citizens of Icklesham, warning notice on microwave and said Chinese and a major incident could have avoided.

Lessons have been learnt and can be seen itemised on the Morning Meeting minutes issued from the Sunday meeting. A follow up "wash-up" meeting is planned to discuss any further issues or worries as determined from the previous minutes. Please note these will have to be notified prior to the meeting at the pre-meet meeting so as amend the agenda herewith attached but open to alteration.

Please appreciate the urgency required therefore I have taken the decision to hold pre-meet with immediate affect in the South of France with the "wash-up" meeting to convene as soon as possible after in Barbados.

(sums up my life as H & S manager at BA Engineering LGW in the distant past)

 

[Barrel of Fun]

There's no way the USA would actually use their weapons but I'd be worried if North Korea had them...

That seems like crazy talk. I would imagine that USA is probably at least the third favourite to fire at will, if provoked. Less so, now that Barrack is in charge, but still...

 

[Everest]

Hiroshima ring any bells?

But how many countries on Aug 6th 1945 had nukes? Completely different nowadays.

 

[1066familyman]

That seems like crazy talk. I would imagine that USA is probably at least the third favourite to fire at will, if provoked. Less so, now that Barrack is in charge, but still...

Odds on favourite I would say without a shadow of a doubt.

 

[NMH]

One good reason why not, is their renegade attitude to the World around them.
But then that could apply to the US as well.

 

[beorhthelm]

That seems like crazy talk. I would imagine that USA is probably at least the third favourite to fire at will, if provoked.

60 years of getting involved conflicts without using nukes would rather prove that wrong. and third after who?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Odds on favourite I would say without a shadow of a doubt.

There was a niggling thought in the back of my mind that this might be the case, but I am giving Barrack the benifit of the doubt. Whilst there has been a bit of posturing from all parties, I am convinced that someone will get in there first. Hopefully we shall have a MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) situation and the whole thing blows over. I am not counting my chechens though.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

60 years of getting involved conflicts without using nukes would rather prove that wrong. and third after who?

Did all the protagonising countries have nuclear weapons in the past 60 years or have they just caught up? I was putting them third after Vatican City and The Christmas Islands.

The reason they are third is that they will use them if someone else does and North Korea or Iran can't be ruled out from firing some nukes. Let's hope Capt. Riley Hale is ready for this one.

 

[Yoda]

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.

Can only see them firing them now in retaliation, only then we end up with a nuclear holocaust instead and no one ends up winning. What could've happened in the cold war.

 

[Don Quixote]

Surely it is better to have a trident missile system. You can sneak up and destroy any city then. Nothing is out of range. If you have fixed Missiles there is probably a range limit.

 

[Acker79]

There's no way the USA would actually use their weapons but I'd be worried if North Korea had them...

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.

It doesn't matter how you justify it, America are the only country to have used a nuclear bomb during a conflict.

They have prior, to suggest they'd never do it, when history has shown there is, in fact was, a situation in which they would/did, when they are the only country to ever have, is naive.

 

[itszamora]

It doesn't matter how you justify it, America are the only country to have used a nuclear bomb during a conflict.

They have prior, to suggest they'd never do it, when history has shown there is, in fact was, a situation in which they would/did, when they are the only country to ever have, is naive.

As others have pointed out though, that was in a completely different context to any use of nuclear weapons today.

 

[Silent Bob]

The reason they are third is that they will use them if someone else does and North Korea or Iran can't be ruled out from firing some nukes.

I don't think any state such as those two is too likely to launch a nuclear attack because they would be wiped out if they did. That doesn't mean they should have them, for one the increase in their power would be good for no one. All North Korea's sabre rattling ever results in is requests for oil food and money, to keep their country from collapsing. Iran would be a different proposition, but the most worrying thing is that Iran having nuclear weapons greatly increased the chances of them falling into the hands of someone who would use them.

 

[Yoda]

It doesn't matter how you justify it, America are the only country to have used a nuclear bomb during a conflict.

They have prior, to suggest they'd never do it, when history has shown there is, in fact was, a situation in which they would/did, when they are the only country to ever have, is naive.

No one has ever dropped/fired a NUCLEAR bomb/missile. Back at the end of WW2 America dropped 2 ATOMIC bombs. Nuclear weapons also have a longer radiation fallout. If Nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan, the cities wouldn't have been rebuilt, even by now.

As to point two, why didn't they use them in the Cold War when Russia was on the verge of firing them from Cuba? There was a situation where they COULD have fired them but didn't. They are there as a deterrent to say 'you fire them at us, we'll fire back while your's are still in the air. We're both f***ed then.' The only trouble with North Korea and Iran, is that they won't take the same stance as the Soviet Union and abide by that same code. Still can't see Obama giving the order to fire unless there are suspected Nuc's flying towards America though.

 

[Vankleek Hill Seagull]

I think they should all play a nice game of chess.

 

[Stoo82]

If Iran or North Korea get the bomb, then their nabours will want to get them, and then we will have mini cold wars in the middle east and the far east. No one wants that. The world should and is heading in the direction of getting rid of those bastasd things but it will take many mnay years.

What you also have to remember is that Iran has said that "Isreal should be wipped off the map" and ressontly North Korea has been saying similer things abou the USA who, there are still tecnicaly at war with.

No one has the right to nucular wepons.

 

[User removed 4]

The american stance on iran ( which i agree with) would be easier to justify if they applied the same standards to israel.