• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

North Korea, Iran should they be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

Y

YouGotOwned

North Korea, Iran under heavy pressure on nuclear talks. But isn’t it there right to own Nuclear weapons.

The number one concern I have is the fact that our democratic world is becoming very greedy for power. In other words the United States and Israel don’t mind owning nuclear arms but they will have a concern if another country joins the race for nuclear weapons. The world should realize people have rights and those rights are being abused because of the United States, Israel and several other countries.

North Korea is perceptibly annoyed with the United States. As a matter of fact, a North Korean air force officer said: "There are no limitations in the striking power of our armed force. If U.S. imperialists ignite flames of war, we will strike all their bases first and turn them into a sea of fire," The bitter rivalry against the North Koreans and the Americans is rather distressful. By pressuring North Korea into disarmament of nuclear weapons the diminutive relationship between the U.S. and North Korea will further deteriorate and the end result may become war. I think the U.S. is playing a game, the game to start a war.

Another country that really disturbs me is Israel. Israel claims they do not have nuclear weapons but some unofficial sources say they do possess nuclear weapons. Israel is demanding that Iran disarms its nuclear weapons development program. Isn’t it a right to eat or not to eat? Well practically thinking Iran has the right to possess nuclear weapons or not possess nuclear weapons. More and more countries such as the United States, Russia, China and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons. If a country decides to develop nuclear weapons, that country is just trying to match the scientific achievements of the “Nuclear Armed” countries. Israel’s demands are just too extensive and therefore Israel is holding back the scientific research of Nuclear weapons.

As can be seen the United States and Israel are violating the rights of Iran and North Korea. Why should our rights be abused? Why does the United States hate nuclear weapons yet they possess it? These questions will be answered, in the words of war or in the words of negotiations, but in the mean time politicians around the world are thinking just about that.



Yes.. So do you think north korea and iran should be allowed nuclear weapons?
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I think we need to have some communication with these countries. The worlds current path is setting us all up for the whole world being ignited in a sea of fire.

Nuclear war must be averted at all costs.
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
YouGotOwned said:
Yes.. So do you think north korea and iran should be allowed nuclear weapons?
No, they should not, but the current treaty that governs nuclear proliferation has no teeth because any country can just back out of it at will with no penalty. A new NPT is needed, one with teeth that will prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons.

Stronger measures should have been taken against India and Pakistan when they became nuclear powers. Of course, one can't blame India for becoming a nuclear power because China is one. Consequently, one also can't blame Pakistan. However, we should try to limit the number of nuclear arms, even among the declared powers in the NPT, not encourage its spread. With North Korea having nuclear weapons, one can certainly argue that both South Korea and Japan would be entirely justified in having nuclear weapons. Taiwan already is justified, but hasn't yet developed them, due to the China threat. This region is already a hot spot because of China, but if all five countries in this region were nuclear powers, that would raise the stakes in an already very dangerous game.
 

Soviet_Guy

Banned
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
383
Reaction score
0
Location
Toronto, Canada
YouGotOwned said:
North Korea, Iran under heavy pressure on nuclear talks. But isn’t it there right to own Nuclear weapons.

The number one concern I have is the fact that our democratic world is becoming very greedy for power. In other words the United States and Israel don’t mind owning nuclear arms but they will have a concern if another country joins the race for nuclear weapons. The world should realize people have rights and those rights are being abused because of the United States, Israel and several other countries.
That's exactly what I've been preaching to everyone I know who cares about world issues, the United States is simply looking to control everything.
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
What do you think North Korea and Iran will do with these nuclear weapons?

I believe that Iran would not hesitate to supply terrorists with nuclear weapons. For the right price, I don't think North Korea would either.

Then again Russia has nuclear arms...
 

Soviet_Guy

Banned
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
383
Reaction score
0
Location
Toronto, Canada
Yes, but Russians are good old jolly people, I'm Russian and I would NEVER use nuclear warheads against anyone.......... :hm :blastem: ....hehehe............. :mrgreen:
 

geek

New member
Joined
May 29, 2005
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Location
Zanesville, Ohio
I think everyone should either a) get rid of all nukes or b) stop complaining about other countries having them.

Solution A would cause problems, with people having 'secret nukes', and solution B isn't very safe. Either way, its a lose/lose situation for the world.

Assuming that solution B will be used before A is ever taken into consideration, there should be regulations for having them (I know there are, but we need some that are strictly enforced amongst everyone, including America)
 

Soviet_Guy

Banned
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
383
Reaction score
0
Location
Toronto, Canada
Okay, America is going to collapse as a strong world power within the next 3-4 decades, after that happens, most countries will cease to want nuclear arms, since most countries want them to compete with the United States, or to destroy it, like Noth Korea.
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think that only trusted countries should be allowed to have nukes. Nuclear technology is very dangerous, and you can't have bad or war-happy leadership in charge of such technology. I think North Korea and Iran shouldn't be allowed to have this technology because they are not trustworthy or stable.
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We don't go dropping nuclear bombs on all our enemies. We take rational approaches to our situations. Furthermore, our country is stable and doesn't need to be proven in the world. Unstable countries are the most succeptible to revolutions or war-mongers who are more willing to send off those nukes at their many enemies. Countries that aren't proven in the world are more willing to use the nukes to show that they aren't to be messed with, to show that they are significant powers in the world. Countries like the U.S. and the U.K. don't need to do that. It is basically much more secure for the world.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
YouGotOwned said:
In other words the United States and Israel don’t mind owning nuclear arms but they will have a concern if another country joins the race for nuclear weapons. The world should realize people have rights and those rights are being abused because of the United States, Israel and several other countries.

The argument of *soverign rights* that you use here to justify continued global nuclear proliferation is disingenuous at best. Please don't confuse nuclear weapons with assault rifles. A *what is good for the goose is good for the gander* mindset just doesn't quite cut it at this order of magnitude.

 

josh

New member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Hornburger said:
We don't go dropping nuclear bombs on all our enemies. We take rational approaches to our situations. Furthermore, our country is stable and doesn't need to be proven in the world. Unstable countries are the most succeptible to revolutions or war-mongers who are more willing to send off those nukes at their many enemies. Countries that aren't proven in the world are more willing to use the nukes to show that they aren't to be messed with, to show that they are significant powers in the world. Countries like the U.S. and the U.K. don't need to do that. It is basically much more secure for the world.
Just remember there is only one country on the world that has dropped a nuclear bomb on their enemies.
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And just remember that the dropping of that bomb was in fact more humane for everyone, even the Japanese.
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I wonder what the civilians who suffered the effects of those bombs would say to that comment.
 

Tashah

wʜɪтe яussɪaи
DP Veteran
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
18,379
Reaction score
9,226
Location
ישראל • אמריקה
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Soviet_Guy said:
Why would Israel need nukes? What would they do with them? Blowup the entire Middle East? lol

You must remember that in the late 1950's when Israel acquired nuclear technology, it was completely surrounded by Arab nations that publically called for its total destruction. With the exceptions of Jordan and Egypt, no peace accord currently exists between Israel and other Arab nations of the Middle East.

Israel has never threatened another nation with nuclear weapons, nor has it ever called for the demise or violent destruction of another nation. Germane to this thread, Iran has and continues to call for the end of the state of Israel at any cost and by any means. This crude bombasity only serves to illuminate the truism that the ruling clerics of the Islamic Republic of Iran are neither politically nor morally mature enough to be entrusted with nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gandhi>Bush said:
I wonder what the civilians who suffered the effects of those bombs would say to that comment.
Let's see. 100,000 Japanese killed compared to an estimated 1 million Japanese killed through a land invasion, not to mention the destruction of many more cities than just 2 and the complete waste of Japanese resources. Not to mention 0 causualties on the American side with the nuclear bomb compared to over 500,000 through a land invasion. If the atomic bomb was not dropped-it would mean complete devastation to Japan, much more than was already done to it. It ended the war. The U.S. would have won either way, everyone agrees there. But it would have taken a very long time and a lot of unnecessary waste of people and resources. The Japanese would not quit if the bomb was not dropped until they had an utterly destroyed country. Afterwards, it would have been MUCH more difficult to have America build up Japan if there was a land invasion.
 
Last edited:

Soviet_Guy

Banned
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
383
Reaction score
0
Location
Toronto, Canada
True, but I think the United States casualties in the war against Japan were nothing compared to 22 million of Soviet Red Army Soldiers.
 

Hornburger

Active member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That is true, who knows what could have happened without Stalin and the Soviet Union in WWII.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
3/4s of the nazi army would be running around europe
 

ludahai

Defender of the Faith
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
10,320
Reaction score
2,115
Location
Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Soviet_Guy said:
True, but I think the United States casualties in the war against Japan were nothing compared to 22 million of Soviet Red Army Soldiers.
Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand as the Soviets didn't even join the war against Japan until Japanese defeat was inevitable and only days away.
 

superskippy

Active member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
377
Reaction score
2
Location
Tel'Aviv (when not on duty.)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Soviet_Guy said:
True, but I think the United States casualties in the war against Japan were nothing compared to 22 million of Soviet Red Army Soldiers.
The reason the Soviets took 22 million casualties was because of their inept army for the bulk of the war, and the lack of patience. They bulldozed across the Oder and took 270,000 casualties against Heinrich's army which was barely an army in itself. They could have avoided the obstacle by just taking time to drive him back through his lack of anti air or artillery ammo to keep his guns going. They struck Berlin far to early and took heaping losses due to commanders wanting to take the city before the other, and Stalins constant attempts to keep the armies going forward regardless of strategy. Also the Russians lost millions in the first few months of the war due to bloated divisions being surrounded and destroyed by Nazi pinches.

The soviets took such mammoth losses because for the first 3/4 of the war they were staffed with inept troops who relied on mass rather than complexity. They fought bravely and the war thanks them for it and will never forget them, but as a whole it is not so far off from the truth sadly to say that 1 German soldier was equal to 3-4 Russians. They simply were better as a whole. True the Russians shaped up by the end of the war and evolved into a crack army but never lost the slightly suicidal tendency for the never ending frontal assault which while succeeding, cost 10x what was necessary.

Also how does that have anything to do with the Japanese atom bomb strikes?

Why would Israel need nukes? What would they do with them? Blowup the entire Middle East? lol

Because we faced enemies on all sides who had no qualms about invading us. And in 1973 we were almost annihilated, and our nuclear weapons were armed. How ever we did not need to use them as our counter strokes defeated the Arabs. Never have we threatened to use our nukes in war or peace, and never have we even openly admitted to using them.
 

frankguy

New member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Location
Shanghai, China
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
ludahai said:
No, they should not, but the current treaty that governs nuclear proliferation has no teeth because any country can just back out of it at will with no penalty. A new NPT is needed, one with teeth that will prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons.

Stronger measures should have been taken against India and Pakistan when they became nuclear powers. Of course, one can't blame India for becoming a nuclear power because China is one. Consequently, one also can't blame Pakistan. However, we should try to limit the number of nuclear arms, even among the declared powers in the NPT, not encourage its spread. With North Korea having nuclear weapons, one can certainly argue that both South Korea and Japan would be entirely justified in having nuclear weapons. Taiwan already is justified, but hasn't yet developed them, due to the China threat. This region is already a hot spot because of China, but if all five countries in this region were nuclear powers, that would raise the stakes in an already very dangerous game.
Hi there, I'm from Shanghai,China. I konw you are from Taibei. Maybe we have different political views but I can do my best to be neutral. I don't think Taiwan can develop nuclear weapons. Why? Beacause US won't let Taiwan do it. In the 90's last century, Tainwan had developed nuclears secretly and it was found by US intelligenct agency. They forced Taiwan to destoy all the nuclear weapons developing facilities.
 
Top Bottom