• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

US 'ready to boost Gulf defence'

tlmorg02

tlmorg02

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
3,347
Reaction score
1,078
Location
Louisville, Ky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | US 'ready to boost Gulf defence'

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the US is prepared to bolster the defence of its Gulf allies if Iran develops a nuclear weapons programme.

Mrs Clinton said if the US extended a "defence umbrella" over the region, it was unlikely that Iran would be any stronger or safer having a weapon.

She was speaking in Thailand where she is attending a regional summit.

On North Korea, she said it must agree to "irreversible" denuclearisation before returning to multilateral talks.

"We have made it very clear to the North Koreans that if they will agree to irreversible denuclearisation, the United States as well as our partners will move forward on a package of incentives and opportunities including normalising relations," she told a press conference in the Thai resort of Phuket.
Click to expand...

So what do you guys think? Is Clinton right, in that Iran will be less safe by developing nuclear weapons? John Mersheimer, the leading Neorealist in IR, has asserted for years that all nations should have nuclear weapons in order to end such weapons as an option. I feel this is quite an ignorant view, because it assumes rational players, and one may easily see that many in the ME, as well as North Korea, do not possess rational leaders. What are your thoughts?
 
tlmorg02 said:
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | US 'ready to boost Gulf defence'



So what do you guys think? Is Clinton right, in that Iran will be less safe by developing nuclear weapons? John Mersheimer, the leading Neorealist in IR, has asserted for years that all nations should have nuclear weapons in order to end such weapons as an option. I feel this is quite an ignorant view, because it assumes rational players, and one may easily see that many in the ME, as well as North Korea, do not possess rational leaders. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Nuclear weapons add danger, not safety. That was proven in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The problem is, they also add power--diplomatic as well as military.

Some nations decide the tradeoff is worth it.
 
celticlord said:
Nuclear weapons add danger, not safety. That was proven in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The problem is, they also add power--diplomatic as well as military.

Some nations decide the tradeoff is worth it.
Click to expand...

My question is, will Iran gaining the nuclear bomb create an arms race in the region? Will Saudi Arabia have to have one, then Iraq,....etc?
 
tlmorg02 said:
My question is, will Iran gaining the nuclear bomb create an arms race in the region? Will Saudi Arabia have to have one, then Iraq,....etc?
Click to expand...
That's not a question, that's a certainty.

We developed nuclear weapons because Nazi Germany was pursuing them.

The Soviet Union pursued nuclear weapons because we had them.

China pursued nuclear weapons because of the United States and the Soviet Union.

Pakistan and India pursued nuclear weapons because the other was doing so.

Once Iran has a bomb, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan will all start looking for ways to nuclearize.
 
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the US is prepared to bolster the defence of its Gulf allies if Iran develops a nuclear weapons programme.
Click to expand...

With what money?

Saudi arabia has spent billions over the years building up its weapons supply, let it defend itself.
 
celticlord said:
Once Iran has a bomb, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan will all start looking for ways to nuclearize.
Click to expand...

Iran is getting it partly because Israel has it.

Not that i blame Iran.
If i was a leader and US invaded two neighbouring countries of mine - one of them on pure spite, i'd be looking for one too incase they fix an eye on me.
The only way Iran will give it up if there is a iron clad agreement it will not be harmed and all other nukes in the region is removed or declared.
 
Last edited:
Laila said:
Iran is getting it partly because Israel has it.
Click to expand...
Entirely incorrect.
Iran has started its nuclear problem while Israel was on a very good relations with it.
 
Nuclear weapons are fairly basic devices, easy to make. It is foolish to try to stop nations from building their own, the attempt will only damage relations. Every nation that has nukes, Pakistan included, has been very responsible in not using them for idle threats, and no one has used a nuke in combat except the US. The risk is not that every country could have a bomb, but that terrorists could get bombs. A terrorist nuke set off in Times Square or DC would be a world-changing event. Rather than alienate nations by trying to stop them from acquiring weapons, we should be building a solid international community determined to deny nuclear weapons from terrorists.
 
celticlord said:
That's not a question, that's a certainty.

We developed nuclear weapons because Nazi Germany was pursuing them.

The Soviet Union pursued nuclear weapons because we had them.

China pursued nuclear weapons because of the United States and the Soviet Union.

Pakistan and India pursued nuclear weapons because the other was doing so.

Once Iran has a bomb, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan will all start looking for ways to nuclearize.
Click to expand...
Just a little correction, Syria has already tried.
 
Apocalypse said:
Entirely incorrect.
Iran has started its nuclear problem while Israel was on a very good relations with it.
Click to expand...

True but i don't think it helps situation that a country inside this region has such weapons.
If Iran gets it, Saudi arabia will want it and so will Egypt and Syria.

I say we strip every country in that region of any chance to posess such weapons until it has at least a few years of collective peace.
 
WillRockwell said:
Nuclear weapons are fairly basic devices, easy to make. It is foolish to try to stop nations from building their own, the attempt will only damage relations. Every nation that has nukes, Pakistan included, has been very responsible in not using them for idle threats, and no one has used a nuke in combat except the US. The risk is not that every country could have a bomb, but that terrorists could get bombs. A terrorist nuke set off in Times Square or DC would be a world-changing event. Rather than alienate nations by trying to stop them from acquiring weapons, we should be building a solid international community determined to deny nuclear weapons from terrorists.
Click to expand...

North Korea has them, and I would not call them responsible in the least.
 
Laila said:
True but i don't think it helps situation that a country inside this region has such weapons.
If Iran gets it, Saudi arabia will want it and so will Egypt and Syria.

I say we strip every country in that region of any chance to posess such weapons until it has at least a few years of collective peace.
Click to expand...
That's irrelevant cause Israel has no nukes anyway. ;)
 
Laila said:
Does S Korea have them?
If not, why not?
Click to expand...

South Korea does not have them, because they have an alliance with the U.S., thus they have no need of them. North Korea has an alliance with China, thus they do not need them, unless for destabilizing the region.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom