Nuclear Weapons

[M-J]

Should Nuclear weapons be used in every country?

Well, in my theory there will be a next world war, and countries have to defend them selfes, now i know that it is forbidden but i highly agree they should be used IN a proper way, not just buy one and bomb a country.

Iran is making a nuclear weapon. so whats up with that i mean they should defend themeselfes and i dont know why that the US it forbidding them, i mean they have those weapons and they are the first to use them for Hiroshima ( Japan ) why cant you forbid them.

the point is, should they be used or not?

[the madscotsman]

Even if you do forbid them, people will still have them cause they wont trust the other side enough to get rid of all of them. Even if they all get rid of them they'll keep at least one 'just in case'. There seems to be nithing we can do about it. they bastards bought them and now they'll want to use them.

[Jaymac2327]

I agree that they are definitely a neccessary evil to ensure your (somewhat) survival. Although I feel that as the only true superpower left that the US has to ensure that Countries that are willing to provide these weapons to terrorists to be used against the US or its Allies, then something should be done, such as not allowing these type of countries to own, build or pursue nuclear arms. I don't feel that Iran has the right to have nuclear weapons if for no other reason then just because their (so-called) leader has been very verbal that he feels that Isreal should be wiped off from the face of this earth. I don't know if this is true, but I for one don't want this guy to have this dream and the capability to do what it. If the "UN" isn't going to going to do anything about this (which is what there job is) then the only option is for the US to do something. Just a personal opinion here but the "UN" is seen as a joke as far as I'm concearned.

[Assassin™]

The United States needs to stop acting like it's the world's police. There is no global law that forbids a country from making a weapon. Besides, even though they are lying, Iran has said that the Uranium enrichment is being used and studied to try to solve an energy crisis. Nevertheless, it is not up to the U.S, U.N., or anyone else to decide who does and who doesn't get to have nuclear weapons.

[Sunshine Acid]

I think no one should have them period.

[bad_meetz_evil]

I think no one should have them period.

Such a hippie. :rolleyes:


I think it should be allowed for defending your country, as in a war, that they cant win, defending themselves. But not like taking over the world.

[Assassin™]

^I must have missed the memo when Iran said it was going to take over the world. No one country will ever do that. The fact that threre is a number of countries with nuclear capabilities will prevent one from standing out.

Anyway, it's not up to one country to allow or disallow another country to do anything unless they have some type of agreement. Iran has purposely distanced itself from any such agreements.

[bad_meetz_evil]

^I must have missed the memo when Iran said it was going to take over the world.

I never said that. I was just giving an example.

[Assassin™]

Then how is that example in any way pertinent in this discussion of Iran having nuclear weapons?

[Sunshine Acid]

Then how is that example in any way pertinent in this discussion of Iran having nuclear weapons?

Well the first line of this topic was a question asking "Should every country use nuclear weapons?" then it went on to discuss Iran, he was adressing the matter of nuclear weapons being used by countries in general and not Iran. Like I said I think they shouldn't be used at all.

[Assassin™]

And the initial exampe used to explain that line of thought was the current situation with Iran. Whether the "take over the world" comment was about Iran or not, it stilll had nothing to do with nuclear weapons and wasn't mentioned anywhere else in this thread.

If you had looked, I wasn't specifically talking about Iran in the "take over the world" sense either:

No one country will ever do that. The fact that threre is a number of countries with nuclear capabilities will prevent one from standing out.

[Sunshine Acid]

And the initial exampe used to explain that line of thought was the current situation with Iran. Whether the "take over the world" comment was about Iran or not, it stilll had nothing to do with nuclear weapons and wasn't mentioned anywhere else in this thread.

If you had looked, I wasn't specifically talking about Iran in the "take over the world" sense either:

Well on to talking about Iran specifically then...

So you think Iran isn't a threat to the U.S. with nuclear weapons? Or other countries for that matter? If you don't think they are I'd probably agree. I don't think Iran is stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon on any country because a retalliation against them would be inevitable. I just think our great :rolleyes: president is using it as an excuse to continue his crusade in the middle east. Kind of like he used non existing Weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to enter Iraq.

[bad_meetz_evil]

Then how is that example in any way pertinent in this discussion of Iran having nuclear weapons?

I was stating, that it should be allowed in smaller countrys to defend themselves in a war. But for others countrys to try and take over the world. I didnt even mention Iran, as I was focusing on the first question.

[Assassin™]

^I'm begging all the members of UOW to read all the posts in the thread they are replying in, or at least the ones that are specifically a rebuttle to them:

And the initial example used to explain that line of thought was the current situation with Iran. Whether the "take over the world" comment was about Iran or not, it stilll had nothing to do with nuclear weapons and wasn't mentioned anywhere else in this thread.

If you had looked, I wasn't specifically talking about Iran in the "take over the world" sense either:
No one country will ever do that. The fact that threre is a number of countries with nuclear capabilities will prevent one from standing out.It may seem smug of me to keep quoting myself, but I wouldn't have to if people would look around first.
I don't think Iran is stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon on any country because a retalliation against them would be inevitable.Iran might gain a little confidence if it realizes that OPEC, France, Syria, Russia, and China would probably all have it's back.
I just think our great:rolleyes: president is using it as an excuse to continue his crusade in the middle east. Kind of like he used non existing Weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to enter Iraq.I could go about 600 more lines on my opinons of Bush, but I don't feel like it. The facts are that the whole world knows Iran has gained nuclear capabilities and power in the Middle East since the "Westernization" of Iraq and Afghanistan. We know Iran has been conducting tests and studies of uranium enrichment, and that's just enough to make the U.S. and Western Europe a little uncomfortable. This is different than what happened in Iraq (more than just the "n" and the "q"). At this point, Iran couldn't deny it's actions with Uranium if they wanted to.

[The Hammer]

Hopefully they will never be used again and I wish they would all be dismantled but that will never happen. I believe that if one ever gets used again that everyone will get nervous and have thei fingers on their buttons and thats the last thing anyone will see. God save us on that day.