Why No Nukes for Iran?

[gilliam]

OK, these quotes have been used in this forum the past few weeks (maybe one of you reading this post has used one or two):

"Israel has nuclear weapons, so why single out Iran?..

“Pakistan got nukes and we lived with it.”…

“Who is to say the United States or Russia should have the bomb and not other countries?”…

“Iran has promised to use its reactors for peaceful purposes, so why demonize the regime?”

And many more. Here is an answer from Victor David Hanson:

…the United States has a perfectly sound rationale for singling out Iran to halt its nuclear proliferation. At least six good reasons come to mind, not counting the more obvious objection over Iran’s violation of U.N. non-proliferation protocols. It is past time that we spell them out to the world at large.
First, we cannot excuse Iran by acknowledging that the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea, and Pakistan obtained nuclear weapons. In each case of acquisition, Western foreign-policy makers went into a crisis mode, as anti-liberal regimes gained stature and advantage by the ability to destroy Western cities.

A tragic lapse is not corrected by yet another similar mistake, especially since one should learn from the errors of the past. The logic of “They did it, so why can’t I?” would lead to a nuclearized globe in which our daily multifarious wars, from Darfur to the Middle East, would all assume the potential to go nuclear. In contrast, the fewer the nuclear players, the more likely deterrence can play some role. There is no such thing as abstract hypocrisy when it is a matter of Armageddon.

Read it all

 

[Ted_CharlotteNC]

Because they don’t like us?

 

[AndyF]

gilliam:

1/The logic of “They did it, so why can’t I?” would lead to a nuclearized globe in which our daily multifarious wars, from Darfur to the Middle East, would all assume the potential to go nuclear.

2/ In contrast, the fewer the nuclear players, the more likely deterrence can play some role.

3/ There is no such thing as abstract hypocrisy when it is a matter of Armageddon.
Read it all

 1/ It is not merely a desire to possess to satisfy craving, but to satisfy a very serious problem every nation is faced with, self defence. Logically in a peaceless world, any of the following makes good sense for any nation..... A/ ....that it has at least the same weapons than everyone else has B/ ....that it has weapons that are better than everyone else C/ ....that it is better to be the only one who possess superior weapons, or weapons.

     Nations will forever jostle to any one of these positions, or, try to hinder other nations from attaining these positions,  just has long has there is no guaranteed peace in the world. This was true for any weapons that were predominant for those times and not due to some devious plan, but is stark reality.

  2/ We know that after the fact, the US after Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not follow a world domination policy. At that time, (and some would argue the Soviets were just making the stage),  the US has the only nation, was the "fewest" nation to be "deterred" by this blanket rule. It sought to ignore it, even though the rule could make just as much sense and realized at that time.( If memory serves me, I believe Openheimer, after seeing the horror they created, and others, advocated the destruction of the nuclear arms program). If this rule had any substance, then the US then could have sacked the nuclear arms program realizing it could not be the* first *on a nuclear arms race.

  3/ A little late to bring up this concern, and we can point no finger at any nation for being an instigator.

   Lasty, if not most importantly,  rule 2309 in Catechism states every nation can dispense "evils and disorders" to match the capabilities of the aggressor. This implies that equal armament is permissible.

  Andy

 

[Ted_CharlotteNC]

Money drives everything in politics (its all about the money)

When Iran was fighting Iraq back in 1970s and 1980s we were on Sadaams side and supplying him intelligence, weapons (its all about the money)

Now Japan is an ally (its all about the money)
Saudi is an ally (its all about the money)
Israel (its all about the money)
Russia , Germany, Pakistan, India, Mexico, and on and on and on
(its all about the money)

Iran is the bad guy because they threaten Iraq (progress ally) and Israel (its all about the money) and Iran sees us as worthless and weak because its all about the money and we sell Our Lady down the River for a buck, and they see themselves as the protector of the faith.

So when you hear about muslim radicals (its all about the money)
and democracy building (its all about the money)
and oil (its all about the money)

Even when we did one of the finest things in the 20th century and freed the Philippines from the death grip of the Japanese (its all about the money) we did it so we could

So politics is all about the money and if you think it’s about anything else, think again because (its all about the money)

Even Osama knows that. He hit the trade towers and the pentagon. Everybody remembers the trade towers (its all about the money). Hit the Americans in the wallet, tank their economy.

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

I think this is a matter for the UN. America shouldn’t dictate. This is a world issue, and America should equally collaborate with the world rather than acting as The world authority on this issue among others.

 

[gilliam]

La-Petite-Fleur:

I think this is a matter for the UN. America shouldn’t dictate. This is a world issue, and America should equally collaborate with the world rather than acting as The world authority on this issue among others.

That’s interesting. Which countries in the UN do you trust with America and Israel’s security?

Iran?
China?
Russia?
Turkey?
Saudi Arabia?
Syria?
Lebenon?

Which ones whould you give the protection of your child to?