Serious QOD
Ok, so my daughter has asked me to ask this question. She has an awesome teacher that has been really discussing current events and getting the kids to think. He was teacher of the year at their school last year. He has NEVER mentioned how he stands politically and never gives his opinion during class. A few weeks ago when the Monkey Cartoon came out he had a discussion during class and my daughter didn’t think the cartoon was offensive and she said that “all the black kids did though” and so we had a discussion on it at home as well.
She texted me yesterday and wanted me to present this question to you. So please in all seriousness answer as best as you can like you were going to be graded on it. My daughter will be viewing these answers.
Why can’t Iran have nuclear weapons but the United States can?
Same reason she can’t have a tattoo. Because we say so.
The better question is “Why can Israel have them, and Iran can’t?”
That’s a great question!!!
You could also have asked: Why can’t Iran have nuclear weapons and Israel can?
One answer is that Iran is perceived by us, and by our ally Israel, as being supporters and promoters of terrorism, therefore Iran would use nuclear weapons as one more weapon of terror, worse than any other so far.
Your question actually begs another very important question, that is: What is terrorism and who are the terrorists?
If you answer that question, it might help give a more complete answer than I have given to your original question.
The short answer is “Because Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”
Might be a good time to discuss why the NPT is a good idea, and how it came to be.
Also a good time to discuss why honoring treaties and international law is a good idea.
Nuclear war would be so devastating for the planet that there would be no “winner” in a nuclear war.
So, nuclear weapons proliferation is bad for everyone because it increases the chances that nuclear war will be started by accident or through careless aggressiveness.
It isn’t just Iran that should not have nuclear weapons; it is India, Japan, Poland, Iceland, South Africa, Israel, Canada, France, Mexico etc, etc…
Some of those countries already have nuclear weapons and that is too bad, but you can’t put toothpaste back in the tube.
What we can do is try to keep other countries from having nuclear weapons. Not because we are “better” than any other country (our unjust invasion of Iraq proves that), but because reducing the chances of having a nuclear war is a good thing to do.
anon #3 Best answer
jason #4 Best teachable moral moment answer
Now pencils down and hand in your papers.
So if nukes are so bad, why don’t we get rid of them?
Also, the US and Israel do not conduct state-sponsored “Death to Iran” cheers.
Maybe it would help the classroom discussion to note that in the same speeches when Iranian officials call for the extinction of Israel, they also call for the extinction of the United States.
Don’t understand #3. Why should signing the treaty mean Iran should not have nuclear weapons? All the other signers have them, including the US.
It is really encouraging that a young person would ask this question. It means young people have figured it out.
“So if nukes are so bad, why don’t we get rid of them?” The same reason why you can’t un-ring a bell.
Nuclear non-proliferation is just one of those uber-stupid “Laws” that mean nothing.
Not only can Iran have nukes, but they likely DO have them.
Frankly I don’t care about that.
Why should signing the treaty mean Iran should not have nuclear weapons?
Read the treaty.
Nuclear non-proliferation is just one of those uber-stupid “Laws” that mean nothing.
It is like gun control for the whole world.
This is the point at which you point out that fair does not always mean right. You could argue tat it’s only “fair” that anyone who can build nuclear weapons ought to be allowed to do so, if anyone is allowed to have them, but it’s clearly not the right thing to do in this instance.
If Israel has nuclear weapons, which is almost certainly the case, she has not used them, despite a war in 1973 and several other provocations; Israel has been proven to be responsible in the possession of atomic weapons over a long period of time. Iran does not have anywhere near the history of responsibility and reliability that Israel has shown. It might not be “fair” to say that, since Iran hasn’t had the weapons in stock to build that history, but it is still right to say no, they can’t have them.
All the other signers have them, including the US.
Not true.
“Iran does not have anywhere near the history of responsibility and reliability that Israel has shown.”
Iran hasn’t invaded anyone in hundreds of years, nor has it persecuted its Jews. Israel, on the other hand, keeps building new settlements on the West Bank. Of course they haven’t used nukes to do it — it would ruin property values (remember, “One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole lawn.”)
Does that really make them more “responsible” and “reliable” than Israel?
Responsible possession of nuclear weapons would include joining the NPT regime, which Israel has not.
As Dana demonstrates, the real goal here is to make the Iranians seem to be completely irrational and therefore a danger for owning these weapons. They aren’t irrational players at all — they are run by extremists, but they certainly do know what they are doing and act accordingly. That does not mean that they are a force for good, but that they do know what they want in terms of national prestige and standing and they’re working at that.
The Iranians having a nuclear weapon changes the entire balance of power in the Middle East — a thing that no one but the Iranians want. Even the Saudis are active in the push back on the Iranians owning a weapon. It is an effort to keep the Iranians as sidelined as possible — which is damned hard for a country with plenty of oil and money to spend. Which is how they got their reactor and their enrichment facilities in the first place.
They don’t have a weapon yet (they aren’t good enough at enrichment yet) but they will get it. No matter how much people want to say no. You can bomb facilities and hope you’ve gotten them all (unlikely), but once the knowledge of how to do it exists, you never wipe that out. And they have access to enough money to startup again pretty quickly.
You might point out the strongest reason for Iran to have nuclear weapons — it decreases the likelihood of invasion by the U.S.
Shouldn’t we ask why can Pakistan have them and not Iran? Pakistan’s government was a major sponsor of the Taliban (which harbored Osama bin Laden) before 9/11. There’s also a lot of evidence that Pakistan sold nuclear technology to North Korea. Pakistan’s government is also more unstable than Iran’s.
In my opinion, U.S. foreign policy has actually incentivized countries to get nuclear weapons. Look at what happens when countries have nukes:
Pakistan – ally, U.S. support
India – ally, U.S. support, in fact explicit support for their nukes
Israel – close U.S. ally, U.S. military and financial support
France – U.S. ally
Russia – contentious relationship, but allied in many ways, mostly tough talk
North Korea – tough talk and negotiations
Iraq – no nukes, allows weapon inspections, invade and depose leader
I think it’s important to look at what our policies do rather than what we say we’re doing. I don’t really think we can stop other countries from developing nukes. The technology is now more than 60 years old, and good scientists can figure out the principles themselves (we’re not going to ban physics textbooks). The only thing we can do is try to limit other countries’ access to nuclear materials, but again that’s very difficult because some countries have their own reserves.
This also brings up the question of peaceful use of nuclear material vs. weapon use. Materials used for nuclear power generation can be converted into weapons-grade material, but it takes a lot of work. That is why we hear the CIA make a big deal out of things like centrifuges, because this is the type of equipment you need.
You might point out the strongest reason for Iran to have nuclear weapons — it decreases the likelihood of invasion by the U.S.
North Korea has 10,000 artillery pieces aimed at downtown Seoul on hair triggers. That is probably what has kept them from being invaded.
Another point is the value of life. Some countries view suicide missions and human sacrifice (whether their’s or the purported enemy), as a mission and “calling” from a higher belief. Certainly, not all countries are of that mindset, but those darn consequences of another’s ideaology are rather permanent.
I don’t believe any “countries” believe than, Joanne. Suicide bombers are a small minority of people acting, in most cases, at the urging of religious splinter groups.
Or were you talking about the Irish?
Kamikaze pilots of WWII?
Oh the Irish…Belfast by bully or brigade..the West Bank of the Isles.
No Geezer, but proliferation of nuclear availability trickles down to “small minority of people acting”, and “religious splinter groups” gaining access. That’s all.
Geezer was 100% right with this:
You might point out the strongest reason for Iran to have nuclear weapons — it decreases the likelihood of invasion by the U.S.
If our recent history shows anything, it shows that we only attack and invade countries that are virtually defenseless.
No, Joanne, it doesn’t. It has not happened, and if it does it will be through Pakistan, not Iran. Don’t fall for the demonization of Iran being promulgated by neo-cons and fear-mongers. Fact of the matter is they’re less hegemonous than the Israelis who are fueling those fears.
Second amendment.
Shorter Dana: Might makes right.
The North Koreans also have a nuclear capability — developed and demonstrated under the watch of BushCo.
And Geezer is right — Pakistan is a known nuclear proliferator.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/04/irans_nuclear_nationalism.html
Thanks, Mis. But I would hope nobody takes as gospel the writings of one side in an internal political dispute. The fact that the mullahs are dictators to their citizens does not automatically mean they will use nukes offensively. Only one country has ever done that — the “responsible,” “reliable” United States.
Geezer, I am attaching no names of countries for demonization, or discussion of military strategy. I will refer to UI’s post @17 referencing the 60 year knowledge base, and now proliferation really just teeters on trust, treaties, and ACCESS.
The countries who don’t have nuclear weapons, will get their nuclear weapons. Why? Because power and human nature works that way. Power–to do so by any means accepted or covert. Human nature–to want what the other guy has, that puts one at a disadvantage not holding. This eventual access can only trickle down the pyramid of mercenaries, and other “so-called” factions, splinter groups, and minorities. This is not fear-mongering. This is what we have seen whether it be highly regulated pharmaceuticals (Fentanyl), or weapons made for the military. Now, I may have a choice not to access Fentanyl on the street, and be lucky not to be taken out in some rampage with a military grade weapon….but the proliferation of more countries coming on board with nuclear weapons, scares my reality of the wider net that will be cast. Should “something” occur, my designation goes from victim to disaster. The less access, the less vulnerability.
Dana at 12
Iran does not have anywhere near the history of responsibility and reliability that Israel has shown.
Now that’s a whopper….
How did Israel show “responsibility” when it used white phosphorous on the civilians in Gaza? The latest in a rich history of atrocities, too numerous to mention, going back to 1947.
And I frankly, I don’t care if Iran has nukes.
thanks all,
See, wasn’t that almost civil. We did it all for the kiddies too. I think we have broken some major ground today.
I will try to do this more often. Civil Discourse….I like it
Answer: Iran is a neighbour of Russia, which has nuclear weapons. It has been attacked by Iraq with chemical weapons. It is very close with, and interacts with Israel, Pakistan, India and China, all of whom have nuclear weapons. It has been threatened by Israel, who has nuclear weapons and a second-strike capability, at least one submarine capable of firing cruise missiles. And it has been threatened by the United States, the only power to have used nuclear weapons in war, who has more and more diverse nuclear weapons than any other country, a country with a history of belligerance and interference with Iran’s internal affairs, and a country who has invaded and occupied Iran’s neighbours to the east and the west.
Throughout the post-war period, the US justified expanding its nuclear arsenal under the strategy of “deterrance”. By any standard, Iran is the country with the most need for nuclear weapons to deter potential aggressors, including the United States and Israel, and possibly Pakistan, India, China and Russia.
In short: the only reason why Iran shouldn’t have nuclear weapons is because it would prevent the United States from using force against it with impunity. This has, in fact, been explicitly stated by the US – (”restrict the United States freedom of action in the area…”).
Yeah, basically, DV we can’t all agree. It is a really interesting topic for discussion. Thanks for bringing it up.
The short answer is “Because Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”
The US hasn’t lived up to its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, so why should Iran?
Joanne: Fair enough. And that’s the short answer to the kids — if Iran gets one, everybody on the block will want one, and the more of them there are, the more likely something goes wrong.
DV,
And no one called anyone else a douchenozzle in this post.
DV #33,
Wanker!
Exactly Geezer–no strategy, no detente, no history, just no access no “accidents”!!
And the USofA is the only country in the world that has ever used nuclear weapons. Now, that’s something to be real proud of.
June wrote:
Yup! Why? Because you have to consider the alternatives, that’s why. We could have laid on a few more firebombings on Japan, bombings which were “conventional,” but killed as many people as the two atomic attacks. And we might have had to invade Japan to finish off the war; how many casualties would that have cost?
President Truman did the right thing.
And that calculus that ends up telling you are right for something that horrific is just as available to the Iranians. The only difference is that you just won’t agree with them.
BREAKING NEWS:
A civil discussion between conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans, Libertarians and far left Hippies took place today at Delaware Liberal.
A National Holiday of Rejoicing has been declared.
The problem is not a nation having nuclear weapons. It is Iran under the current government having them. They said that they would commit genocide if they had the chance. It is like your crazy on meds ex-spouse who threatens to kill you everyday having weapons delivered, reading how to build explosives in the library, buying a new work van and having two tons of fertilizer delivered to his suburban basement. Why would it be fair to investigate him for reading in library, having a new vehicle, and ordering fertilizer? Farmer Joe did the same thing after all.
The legal basis is different. Iran is a signatory of the nonproliferation treaty. It should withdraw if it won’t keep its word. Many nations decided to limit the expansion of the nuclear universe. They realized that these weapons were unique and allowing them to go to unstable governments could have grave consequences. It is by the rules that Iran help set up that we judge them.
Iran was attacked. It is surrounded by powers that are not friendly. One has to admit though that part of the reason the other nations aren’t friendly is because they support subversion, terrorism, and revolution throughout the world. It tends not to win you friends. Iran’s President has said that he is willing to use such weapons. That means that the powers that he has attacked before or threatened to attack should be nervous. I would contend that we cannot let them get the bomb.