Are other countries, like Iran, entitled to have nuclear weapons to protect themselves?

[msc545]

Updates

5 mo

Are these countries entitled to protect themselves against predatory countries like the U. S?

Updates

5 mo

Try not to get hung up on a word "entitled" that I used. Try instead to focus on the question itself, please.

[lightbulb27]

USA literally gave Iran a nuclear reactor. But handing out nuclear bombs is bad because it gives power to others we don't want to have power. They could easily misuse it if fallen into wrong policy, or maybe they don't manage them well... a terrorist gets it, and uses it to destroy millions.

that be a problem for world peace and stability, no?

Here's something to consider. "IM GOING TO KILL YOU AND ALL YOUR FAMILY... WE HAVE GUNS, WE PRINTED THEM ON A PRINTER WITH REAL BULLETS AND SCOPES AND YOU WILL ALL DIE. IF NOT THAT WAY, THEN BY THE BOMBS WE SEND INTO YOUR HOUSE. OUR ASSASSINS WILL GET YOU!"

There is no way in hell you'd recommend your government providing such a person and their friends a car and airplane ride to your state.

That is what you are asking... it's insane.

[msc545]

Giving people who are obviously dangerous nuclear weapons is one thing. Interfering in the internal affairs of countries whose politics and religions you don't like is quite another thing. Making war against such countries is yet a third and arguably worst thing.

[lightbulb27]

yes it is, it is control. can all be argues.
you wouldn't invade or take forceful action against your neighbor... until you find out they are running a meth lab and the rate at which those labs blow up.
then you might intervene.
there are times and reasons to stand up and interfere for the good of others. thats the nature of power.
and we all hope it goes ok, if it doesn't, we will pay.

[msc545]

If it's a neighbor right next to your house, then yeah, that's a problem because when their meth lab blows up, it's likely to catch your house on fire or injure you. However, if your neighbor is running a meth lab three streets over, that's his problem, not yours.

[lightbulb27]

not if its malibu and there's a big wind storm same time

[msc545]

Yes, but you might also take forceful action against your neighbor if you want their land or their resources. That is what Trump is proposing to do in regard to Canada and Mexico. That is what he did in regard to Venezuela.

[Hagar88]

Entitled by whom?

The real question is having been attacked by Iran multiple times since 1980 is the United States, Britain, Israel, iraq, syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, Oman, Qatar, Afghanistan and others going to allow a rogue state like Iran be in a position where they can lob nuclear material in one of their rockets at Israel? You think china or Russia, Pakistan or india wants that?

[msc545]

That is a problem for Israel. It's not a problem for the United States. Also, please keep in mind that Israel has nuclear weapons of its own. They can retaliate if they want to.

[Hagar88]

The United States has been attacked multiple times by Iran as well as threatened.
Israel has nukes yet never used them once.
How do you think Israel is able to fly over 4 muslim countries to strike iran?

[msc545]

I'm not aware that the US has been attacked by Iran at all. Please tell me when and where that happened.

[Hagar88]

there's been 170 attacks on the US in the last 5 years by iran

[msc545]

Document and list them. If you don't, they didn't happen.

[Hagar88]

Definitely did happen right from the beginning with the seizure of the us embassy in 1979.
You are free to look up Iranian attacks on the us if you want, your lack of knowledge makes you look ignorant on the subject and current events.

[RandomGirl42]

What if all countries could only protect themselves with water balloons or something instead?

[Kelly6]

@msc545 every country is entitled to have it

[msc545]

I agree with that.

[NathanDavis]

nuclear weapons are attack weaponry... not defensive systems

deterrent is a very different concept than defensive

and no, absolutely nobody is entitled to any of them

[msc545]

Historically, merely possessing nuclear weapons has been a deterrent directed at the United States, which otherwise would invade a country and take all of its resources.

[msc545]

An example of this is North Korea.

[NathanDavis]

there has been official documents leaked or published before in which "plans" for a North Korea invasion is suggested

and the "worry" for the USA is not North Korea's "nuclear weapons" the true challenge would be China

North Korea does not have the logistics nor the technological resources to actually wage a war against the USA, nor to maintain a defense of their territory because everything in NK is propaganda and pretend... and the plans do reflect that, US and South Korea could invade with tactical surgery and simply eliminate few leaders and few elite forces, and the rest of the armed forces would be pretty much neutralized as not-operational from a logistic point... "very simple"

think of a Maduro situation happening again, but a bit more explosive than that... as for the nuclear weapons, North Korea doesn't have the ability to actually reach targets, again... it is about logistics, having nuclear material, having warheads, having big ass rockets... and then having the means to deploy, launch and guide such "nuclear weapons" are very complicated and North Korea definitely doesn't have all ready, and the reason for that is also very simple

China does not allow it, does not want it... China's (also leaked plans) are... "No War, No Inestability, No Nukes" and on their plan, their main interest is to prevent a war between the North and the South, and to prevent an invasion from the USA

so, yeah... the one "deterrent" for the US government has always been China, not the North Korean stockpile of fissile material

[msc545]

Okay so China. That does not affect my hypothesis. That countries with nuclear weapons will not be attacked or even really bullied by the US. The nuclear weapons act as a deterrent. I think if China didn't have them the US would have been involved heavily in its internal affairs and might even have invaded it. That's never going to happen now to that extent. Nuclear weapons or at least the belief that someone has nuclear weapons brings peace.

[NathanDavis]

from the current list of countries who have nuclear weapons of their own... or host the weaponry of others, the vast majority of them are allies to the USA, so yeah, I don't see that happening either

you mention Iran in your post, and while they don't possess a weapon, yet... it is generally believed that they could deploy one fairly quickly if they were allowed to do so

but the idea that nuclear weapons bring peace... (as a deterrent) is based on the status quo... because those who have them today, are in a lock to not act with them

now, if you bring new players into the scenario... such status quo and guarantee might break and no longer be reliable, and if you ask me... that's quite the big gamble to make

so, they won't

[msc545]

It would be a really good idea for the Iranians to have a nuclear weapon if they don't already have one, which I suspect they do. In fact, they don't even have to have one. They just have to have others believe that they have one. That would be sufficient. Iran needs something to keep from getting attacked by the United States. The nuclear weapon, or the belief that they have a nuclear weapon, will do it.

[NathanDavis]

believe it or not... it's not that easy to fake an actual "fully armed system" with nuclear capabilities... especially not nowadays

and that's the case of North Korea... think about this way, in order for any country (that does not ordinarily have one already) to develop a system able to use a nuclear weapon and attack with it, they would need to follow 1000 steps... and so that would be 1000 steps you need to hide and leave no print... and the steps 400 to 1000 are the most difficult if not impossible to hide, lol or fake as you suggest

and that's why North Korea is not really a true worry for the USA

[msc545]

I think developing an actual atomic weapon and delivery system is a big task indeed. However, you don't need to do this. All you need to do is convince the United States that you've either done it or that you can do it. And that's enough to keep them from attacking for most of the time. I want to point out that North Korea has credibly launched multiple different ballistic missiles. And if they in fact do have a nuclear weapon, which they might, they could probably hit the West Coast of the United States with one at this point.

Since I live in Los Angeles, this concerns me to some extent. I don't need our lunatic president provoking these people any more than he already has.

[msc545]

I don't think this is just speculation anymore:

Based on advances in their intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) technology as of late 2017 to early 2025, North Korea is believed to be capable of hitting the West Coast of the United States with a nuclear-armed missile. Experts suggest Hwasong-15 or Hwasong-19 ICBMs can reach major U. S. cities.
Range Capabilities: Tests in 2017 showed ICBMs capable of reaching the U. S. mainland, with analysts indicating potential to hit the West Coast, including Seattle and Los Angeles.
Technological Maturity: While earlier tests demonstrated, at least theoretically, that North Korea has the ability to deliver a warhead to the U. S. West Coast, some experts in 2024 noted it was not yet guaranteed that they had a fully operational system that could reliably strike the mainland.
Solid Fuel Advancements: Newer missiles, such as the Hwasong-19, use solid fuel, which allows for faster launches and makes them harder to detect before takeoff.
Nuclear Capability: North Korea is believed to have the technology to miniaturize nuclear warheads to fit on these missiles.
Potential Targets: Experts in 2017 speculated that North Korea might target U. S. military facilities on the West Coast, such as those in San Diego or Alaska.
Despite these developments, the U. S. has developed ballistic missile defense systems, such as ground-based interceptors (GBIs), designed to counter such threats.

[msc545]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-19

[NathanDavis]

two points...

if you live in LA, that means... you live next to one of the biggest military bases in the mainland, that's in San Diego, in Coronado... which is the home to most of the Pacific fleet and also a lot of SEAL teams so, rest assured... if there's a complex they would want to protect first... it is going to be Southern California

but the best guarantee for the USA is rarely seen... submarines, and there always submarines in the West Coast

and the second point... the source for these "credible reports" are very easy to track

they mostly, come from the MDAA... which is a privately owned organization that lobbies for more military spending every single year, and yes... their entire board are all people who have ties, stock and paychecks from all of these big military corps that get awarded millions and billions from Trump and other past presidents

so, when the ones who benefit the most tell you "yeah, we need more rockets because North Korea is going to nuke us !!!"

"GIVE US MORE BILLIONS TO FIGHT BACK !!! "

do you really see them as the most "credible source"

[NaultD]

Entitled is a bit weird wording to use. It's a strategy to defend yourself but at what cost? Are there better alternatives?

Usa has a problem with mix messaging where it feels like a lose lose situation so might as well have a nukes.

[msc545]

I'm not aware of any other deterrent to nuclear weapons except having your own nuclear weapons. Please take note of the fact that the United States has never once attacked a country that had nuclear weapons or that they thought might have nuclear weapons. Even the US is not that stupid. Instead, they attack defenseless countries because they know that they can just roll right over them and take what they want from them. Bullies always attack smaller people.

[NaultD]

Trade, tourism, economic opportunities cooperation is a better carret motivation then any stick and muster even a nuclear war head stick.

Ok your spending billions on a stick to defend yourself but no economy to back it. How useful is it?

North Korea and Iran has been fucked over usa and it's usa fault for these countries to see nuclear weapons as the only sold defense. From there usa is in greater danger. This is why the Iran nuclear deal was a nessesity to global security to tip toe into economic harmony. Then threw it away to get nothing for it.

[AviatorTom]

As a deterrent, to never be used, a country should be entitled to have nuclear weapons. But if there is evidence or concern that a country might plan to actually use nuclear weapons, then it's better to keep the weapons out of their hands.

[msc545]

The way that you find out whether or not they intend to use it is at the point at which they actually use it on you. This is not a good solution at all, I think.

[MisterWack]

In my opinion, all nuclear weapons should be dismantled.
No country deserves it.

[exitseven]

some countries would be like giving a ten year old a stick of dynamite. Iran is one of those countries. There are others with savage regimes that cannot be allowed to have nukes.

[msc545]

Why would it be a problem for Iran to have nuclear weapons? They have never used those on another country, unlike the U. S.

[exitseven]

they never used it on anyone because they did not get to finish building one. If they ever made one Israel would be first and the US second.

[msc545]

Once again, you don't know whether they finished building one or not, but you assume that because the U. S. says they didn't, then that means they didn't. I wouldn't count on that if I were you. Unlike the U. S., I don't think the Iranians are stupid enough to use one on somebody.

[exitseven]

The Iranians would have no problem setting off a nuke under the Jungle Ride at Disney World.

[msc545]

That's just hyperbole and you have no evidence that that is true.

[msc545]

Just go work for Trump and you can make up all kinds of lies and he'll pay you for it.

[Sevenpointfive]

we never really left the imperial ages it seems.

[Dargil]

No, they are not. Their theocracy and ideology cannot be trusted. Am I saying that America is the world's policeman? Yes, I am. Someone has to do it. Otherwise, all we'll have is death, smoke and anarchy.

[ProbablyClueless]

Honestly, the fewer people with access to nukes, the safer the world is. Iran has proven that it will use its non-nuclear resources to throw the world around it into chaos.


I can’t stand the fact anyone has them at all. The US included.

[slatyb]

It´s very frightening when countries ruled by ideologues have nuclear weapons. But it´s very hard to prevent any country from building them.

[msc545]

It's also very frightening when countries are ruled by mentally ill individuals, such as Trump. But again, it's hard to prevent the U. S. from building them.

[Twodogs0525]

China and Russia don't even want Iran to have nuclear weapons. It's pretty simple. No one is entitled to anything!

[CaptainSmartass]

Nope. Countries like Iran, "China", USSR, North Korea, et al, aren't even entitled to exist, never mind have nukes.

Simples...

[msc545]

People with your attitude and beliefs are also not entitled to exist.

[Iron_Man]

no they’re crazy. They’ll nuke America And they’ll hit Los Angeles and that will be it for all of you

[msc545]

They're not going to do any of that. They're too smart to do it. And they know exactly what the ultimate result would be, which is their country would get literally destroyed. Even they don't want that.

[Iron_Man]

You could get a dictator on his last legs mentally ill, and he could pull the trigger trying to go out in a blaze of glory on his terms which is not a blaze of glory, which is a suicide mission. They are not mentally stable they’re always wishing death to America Iran. Iran is extremely dangerous.

[msc545]

It could happen, but realistically, almost any nuclear power, including us, could do that to another country. I think the only thing that stops everyone, including us, is the threat of reprisal. We have to depend on that because, other than that, there is no way to stop this. Trump is mentally ill, and it worries me that he may try it at some point, except that I think his generals would stop him. I certainly would hope so.

[AngryCarl3]

Yes but Israel wouldn't like it because they'd have to wind their neck in.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Yes, but they must be carefully monitored as Iran and other bad actors are totally untrustworthy.

[Agape93]

Nope. Get them if you can. But you aren't entitled to shit.

[msc545]

Stop perseverating on my use of the word "entitled". People don't get them, as you put it. They build them. I don't think anybody has ever stolen one.

[Agape93]

Get them as in acquire, and one acquires them buy making them.

[msc545]

I understand exactly what the word means, and I also understand what "acquire" means, and I understand what "buy" means, and I understand what "making them" means. None of that is the point.

The real point is, should the US be bitching about them having nuclear weapons, considering how many the US has and considering the US's terrible track record?

[Agape93]

Nope

[Snakeyes7]

The US is not the predator here. They've been calling for our destruction since it fell into terrorist hands.

[msc545]

I don't think they've been doing that at all, but if they've done anything close to that, it's probably a response to the constant predation by the U. S.

[Snakeyes7]

What do you make of 9/11 then?

[msc545]

I'm not clear that they had anything to do with 9/11. As far as I can tell, that was Saudi Arabia.

[Snakeyes7]

Iran is where all of these terrorist organizations get their funding from. If the Iranian regime falls, then we will see a drastic decline in Islamic terrorist attacks in general, and there have been hundreds of thousands worldwide since 9/11.

[msc545]

Do you have something to support those statements, or is that just your opinion?

[Snakeyes7]

It is what I have heard. Apparently, China is also heavily involved in supporting the regime during the protests so I am in favor in taking out a Chinese ally.

[msc545]

I hear many things too. I choose not to believe anything that can't be supported with some reasonable evidence.

[DrPepper12]

Pursue? Yes

Posses? No

[888theGreat]

yep, but probably won't

[Anonymous]

Entitled by who?

[msc545]

The United States likes to style itself as the world's police.

[Opinion Owner]

Let someone else do it

[msc545]

0 it gives the USA to literally have a trillion dollar a year defense budget, which is nothing more than bribes and payoffs and graphed to the defense industry. This industry pretty much runs our country.