Why should Iran not have nuclear power?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

It would be great is no country had the nuclear bomb. But unfortunately some have. We're lucky because those who have are (for the moment indeed) sane. So, since some have, everybody should have ?
The idea of "everybody or nobody" makes no sense when it comes to nuclear weapons. The less countries have, the better it is. And especially if it's an agressive and fanatic regime.
It's not The Right Option, it's just the less worse realistic one.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

It would be great is no country had the nuclear bomb. But unfortunately some have. We're lucky because those who have are (for the moment indeed) sane. So, since some have, everybody should have ?
The idea of "everybody or nobody" makes no sense when it comes to nuclear weapons. The less countries have, the better it is. And especially if it's an agressive and fanatic regime.
It's not The Right Option, it's just the less worse realistic one.

There is no Right in this solution, then beyond being unfair and partial, it creates problem.

Then the less worse solution would surely be to establish fair rules, to establish Right.

If Right leads to a nuclear war, I still prefer undfairness and partiality.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

It would be great is no country had the nuclear bomb. But unfortunately some have. We're lucky because those who have are (for the moment indeed) sane. So, since some have, everybody should have ?
The idea of "everybody or nobody" makes no sense when it comes to nuclear weapons. The less countries have, the better it is. And especially if it's an agressive and fanatic regime.
It's not The Right Option, it's just the less worse realistic one.

There is no Right in this solution, then beyond being unfair and partial, it creates problem.

Then the less worse solution would surely be to establish fair rules, to establish Right.

If Right leads to a nuclear war, I still prefer undfairness and partiality.

Fear and absence of reflexion, coupled to absence of Right, unfairness, and partiality would imo give more odds for such a thing.

You just realize that you speak about a nuclear conflict out of nowhere, without considering all nuances of the reality and all solutions that could be used, but just saying Iran=Nuclear War, that's a bit short to me.

I don't say it will necessary happen. Just that Iran having nuclear bomb dramatically increase the odds of a nuclear conflict. So, I'm in favor of taking precautions.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

It would be great is no country had the nuclear bomb. But unfortunately some have. We're lucky because those who have are (for the moment indeed) sane. So, since some have, everybody should have ?
The idea of "everybody or nobody" makes no sense when it comes to nuclear weapons. The less countries have, the better it is. And especially if it's an agressive and fanatic regime.
It's not The Right Option, it's just the less worse realistic one.

There is no Right in this solution, then beyond being unfair and partial, it creates problem.

Then the less worse solution would surely be to establish fair rules, to establish Right.

If Right leads to a nuclear war, I still prefer undfairness and partiality.

Fear and absence of reflexion, coupled to absence of Right, unfairness, and partiality would imo give more odds for such a thing.

You just realize that you speak about a nuclear conflict out of nowhere, without considering all nuances of the reality and all solutions that could be used, but just saying Iran=Nuclear War, that's a bit short to me.

I don't say it will necessary happen. Just that Iran having nuclear bomb dramatically increase the odds of a nuclear conflict. So, I'm in favor of taking precautions.

Then, if you want to decrease the odds, have a look to the possible fair solutions. And the earlier the better, what will say if US, or whatever country with nukes, one day become crazy since they already nuclear weapons?? Better to find solutions that put everybody under an equal preventive treatment of such conflicts. The earlier the better to establish some Right in this domain.

I 100% agree, but this doesn't solve Iran's question. While an international regulation on nuclear weapons seems necessary, it's also evident that it won't be reached before a few decades at best. But in Iran case, it changes nothing to the fact that the world will be safer as long as they haven't the atomic bomb.

Oh, and Antonio: You're becoming quite a Neocon

Yeah, for French standards, I'm definitely one.
On the traditional spectrum, I tend to be a kind of centrist on international issues (on some other aspects, like relations with China&co, I'm however quite far to the left). If I were a radical anti-neocon such as BRTD, Gmantis or the average Frenchie, I'd never have registered on a merikun imperialist forum !

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

It would be great is no country had the nuclear bomb. But unfortunately some have. We're lucky because those who have are (for the moment indeed) sane. So, since some have, everybody should have ?
The idea of "everybody or nobody" makes no sense when it comes to nuclear weapons. The less countries have, the better it is. And especially if it's an agressive and fanatic regime.
It's not The Right Option, it's just the less worse realistic one.

There is no Right in this solution, then beyond being unfair and partial, it creates problem.

Then the less worse solution would surely be to establish fair rules, to establish Right.

If Right leads to a nuclear war, I still prefer undfairness and partiality.

Fear and absence of reflexion, coupled to absence of Right, unfairness, and partiality would imo give more odds for such a thing.

You just realize that you speak about a nuclear conflict out of nowhere, without considering all nuances of the reality and all solutions that could be used, but just saying Iran=Nuclear War, that's a bit short to me.

I don't say it will necessary happen. Just that Iran having nuclear bomb dramatically increase the odds of a nuclear conflict. So, I'm in favor of taking precautions.

Then, if you want to decrease the odds, have a look to the possible fair solutions. And the earlier the better, what will say if US, or whatever country with nukes, one day become crazy since they already nuclear weapons?? Better to find solutions that put everybody under an equal preventive treatment of such conflicts. The earlier the better to establish some Right in this domain.

I 100% agree, but this doesn't solve Iran's question. While an international regulation on nuclear weapons seems necessary, it's also evident that it won't be reached before a few decades at best. But in Iran case, it changes nothing to the fact that the world will be safer as long as they haven't the atomic bomb.

The fact not to try yet gives more odds to have problems, while trying could help to rule the question.

You're changing the subject of the question. We're talking about Iran trying to get atomic weapons.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

It would be great is no country had the nuclear bomb. But unfortunately some have. We're lucky because those who have are (for the moment indeed) sane. So, since some have, everybody should have ?
The idea of "everybody or nobody" makes no sense when it comes to nuclear weapons. The less countries have, the better it is. And especially if it's an agressive and fanatic regime.
It's not The Right Option, it's just the less worse realistic one.

There is no Right in this solution, then beyond being unfair and partial, it creates problem.

Then the less worse solution would surely be to establish fair rules, to establish Right.

If Right leads to a nuclear war, I still prefer undfairness and partiality.

Fear and absence of reflexion, coupled to absence of Right, unfairness, and partiality would imo give more odds for such a thing.

You just realize that you speak about a nuclear conflict out of nowhere, without considering all nuances of the reality and all solutions that could be used, but just saying Iran=Nuclear War, that's a bit short to me.

I don't say it will necessary happen. Just that Iran having nuclear bomb dramatically increase the odds of a nuclear conflict. So, I'm in favor of taking precautions.

Then, if you want to decrease the odds, have a look to the possible fair solutions. And the earlier the better, what will say if US, or whatever country with nukes, one day become crazy since they already nuclear weapons?? Better to find solutions that put everybody under an equal preventive treatment of such conflicts. The earlier the better to establish some Right in this domain.

I 100% agree, but this doesn't solve Iran's question. While an international regulation on nuclear weapons seems necessary, it's also evident that it won't be reached before a few decades at best. But in Iran case, it changes nothing to the fact that the world will be safer as long as they haven't the atomic bomb.

The fact not to try yet gives more odds to have problems, while trying could help to rule the question.

You're changing the subject of the question. We're talking about Iran trying to get atomic weapons.

No, look this fantastic suite of quotes, everything makes logic, I'm saying since the beginning that, if you want to rule questions like Iran, you have to rule the question of Right in that domain, the earlier the better, for Iran and all cases present or future.

As I already said, yes, it would be nice, but it won't be done before a while. So, among the currently realizable possibilities, the best one for world's safety is Iran not having nuclear weapons.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because it's a dictatorship representing a blatant threat to the world's safety.

Oh boy...

We're making up them a threat they can't be. We're giving to a roaring kitty the importance of a tiger, and we're wasting our time in this sense, and wasting solutions then.

And, one more time, anyways, the fact that any country/entity has a nuclear weapon is a threat for world's safety, so each time this argument is pulled out, personally I'd like that a claim for a total denuclearization of the world follows, or at least I'd wait for a fair position to come with, because fairness is Right, and when there is no more Right, then it's the beginning of problems...

Nuclear weapons shouldn't exist. But since they do, they should be reserved to country which are stable enough and whose leaders are sane enough not to use it. In some way, we can say that the reason why we never had WWIII betwen USA and USSR is that Stalin's successors were sane enough to understand that it would be a catastrophe. Currently, the governing class in Iran is definitely too crazy for that.

The point being that nothing guarantee that a country will always stay 'sane', that's not hard to acknowledge I think, one more time I'm not reassured that US has some.

Plus you can't set a rule on double standards and unfairness, otherwise you can't call it Right.

It would be great is no country had the nuclear bomb. But unfortunately some have. We're lucky because those who have are (for the moment indeed) sane. So, since some have, everybody should have ?
The idea of "everybody or nobody" makes no sense when it comes to nuclear weapons. The less countries have, the better it is. And especially if it's an agressive and fanatic regime.
It's not The Right Option, it's just the less worse realistic one.

There is no Right in this solution, then beyond being unfair and partial, it creates problem.

Then the less worse solution would surely be to establish fair rules, to establish Right.

If Right leads to a nuclear war, I still prefer undfairness and partiality.

Fear and absence of reflexion, coupled to absence of Right, unfairness, and partiality would imo give more odds for such a thing.

You just realize that you speak about a nuclear conflict out of nowhere, without considering all nuances of the reality and all solutions that could be used, but just saying Iran=Nuclear War, that's a bit short to me.

I don't say it will necessary happen. Just that Iran having nuclear bomb dramatically increase the odds of a nuclear conflict. So, I'm in favor of taking precautions.

Then, if you want to decrease the odds, have a look to the possible fair solutions. And the earlier the better, what will say if US, or whatever country with nukes, one day become crazy since they already nuclear weapons?? Better to find solutions that put everybody under an equal preventive treatment of such conflicts. The earlier the better to establish some Right in this domain.

I 100% agree, but this doesn't solve Iran's question. While an international regulation on nuclear weapons seems necessary, it's also evident that it won't be reached before a few decades at best. But in Iran case, it changes nothing to the fact that the world will be safer as long as they haven't the atomic bomb.

The fact not to try yet gives more odds to have problems, while trying could help to rule the question.

You're changing the subject of the question. We're talking about Iran trying to get atomic weapons.

No, look this fantastic suite of quotes, everything makes logic, I'm saying since the beginning that, if you want to rule questions like Iran, you have to rule the question of Right in that domain, the earlier the better, for Iran and all cases present or future.

As I already said, yes, it would be nice, but it won't be done before a while. So, among the currently realizable possibilities, the best one for world's safety is Iran not having nuclear weapons.

Hmm, let's try a last time, and after enough:

If you don't try you'll get nothing, you have to try the earlier possible to rule Iran and other future questions would it just be for those who already have some. Because trying can rule Iran, not trying will anyways make the situation worse. That's not very hard to get I think, the rest is blind fear.

Damn, this quote is starting to get big...
If we manage to establish such thing, then fne with me. If not, it's still better not to have a nuclearized Iran.