• 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!

Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296, 650]

Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?


  • Total voters
    118
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

I heard someone make the argument that Obama doesn't believe the US has any rightful role in preventing or hindering Iran from developing and maintaining nuclear weapons. I don't know that that's true, and nobody but the President can answer to what he believes, so I'll ask what you believe. If Iran has the ability, does it have the "right" to nuclear weapons? (By "right", I mean the U.S. and other nations would not be unjustified in trying to prevent it.)

working on the poll
I say yes they do just as much as the US,Britain or any other country that currently has nukes. I think the better question should be is do countries that have nukes have any business telling other countries if they can or can't have nukes.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

according to some friends USA has the right to nuke any nation but iran doesnt . )
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

didn't Iran sign the non-proliferation pact?
I'm not all that concerned about nukes -I am concerned about Iranian regional hegemony..
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

You're still wrong.

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Of course Eisenhower was agenda driven????? Sorry, but he had a heated discussion with Stimson at the time. And his other comment was after he was no longer president and in retirement. What would that agenda be exactly. And what about Truman, of course he would have cause to defend his own decision to use nuclear weapons, and until his death he did.

I perused the thread a little and don't see that you commented on Iran, and it's alleged nuclear weapons ambition, any thoughts on that??

Had the report been issued in 1944, then you would have some relevant information to discuss about the decision Truman made in 1945. The document was an interesting read. Did you actually read it or were you just referred to it by others with your hindsight opinion?

How about an actually relevant document which was the minutes of a meeting that took place on June 18, 1945 to discuss Japan: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/pdfs/21.pdf#zoom=100.

Note on page 4, Eisenhower did have his opinion on the idea that "air power alone was not sufficient to put the Japanese out of the war" meaning that an invasion was necessary. The relevant leaders were in the room, except for Arnold who was well represented by Eaker. Eisenhower was not present.

So you may have disagreed with the decision and even how it was carried out, but it was an attack on military targets (which you stopped saying that it was many posts ago) surrounded by a lot of people and without the benefit of YOUR hindsight, Truman made a decision that he stood by. In my own opinion, Truman dropped 1 atomic bomb, the Japanese leaders dropped the 2nd one by not surrendering sooner. Unconditional Surrender were the terms and they were well known. The same terms were applied to Italy and Germany and you object to those terms with a very weak statement basically to the effect of: "they were preparing to surrender".

It was interesting in the report that the bomb on Hiroshima had the same effect of about 220 full bomb loads of B-29's. One bomb was clearly demoralizing, although it was interesting in that same report that the opinions of those far outside the bombed cities, it was less impactful on morale.

I object to Iran getting nuclear weapons based on the statements of their leaders who seem to regularly talk about wiping people off the face of the earth. Generally the Iranians are good people and without the dogma of the religious leaders of that country, I would probably not object.

Oh, and I referenced Iran most recently in post 589.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Had the report been issued in 1944, then you would have some relevant information to discuss about the decision Truman made in 1945. The document was an interesting read. Did you actually read it or were you just referred to it by others with your hindsight opinion?

How about an actually relevant document which was the minutes of a meeting that took place on June 18, 1945 to discuss Japan: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/bomb/large/documents/pdfs/21.pdf#zoom=100.

Note on page 4, Eisenhower did have his opinion on the idea that "air power alone was not sufficient to put the Japanese out of the war" meaning that an invasion was necessary. The relevant leaders were in the room, except for Arnold who was well represented by Eaker. Eisenhower was not present.

So you may have disagreed with the decision and even how it was carried out, but it was an attack on military targets (which you stopped saying that it was many posts ago) surrounded by a lot of people and without the benefit of YOUR hindsight, Truman made a decision that he stood by. In my own opinion, Truman dropped 1 atomic bomb, the Japanese leaders dropped the 2nd one by not surrendering sooner. Unconditional Surrender were the terms and they were well known. The same terms were applied to Italy and Germany and you object to those terms with a very weak statement basically to the effect of: "they were preparing to surrender".

It was interesting in the report that the bomb on Hiroshima had the same effect of about 220 full bomb loads of B-29's. One bomb was clearly demoralizing, although it was interesting in that same report that the opinions of those far outside the bombed cities, it was less impactful on morale.

I object to Iran getting nuclear weapons based on the statements of their leaders who seem to regularly talk about wiping people off the face of the earth. Generally the Iranians are good people and without the dogma of the religious leaders of that country, I would probably not object.

Oh, and I referenced Iran most recently in post 589.


You're an apologist for US atrocity, and you've some company with that. Lol. Of course the Truman library will be defensive of Truman deeds.

To the bolded. Good, then you support the work of P5+1!!!
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

No, even just in a better world. No, I'm not the only rational person, dozens of countries are actively working for nuclear eradication
All rational nations, governments, and people advocate a nuke free world; which does include the US_

But only the complete idiots* would throw away their guns with Charles Manson living across the street!

as well as advocacy groups here and across the world.
The problem with these "advocacy groups" is that many of them are *complete idiots and others are simply far-left advocates that are more concerned about the best interests of America's enemies_

The good guys absolutely must maintain a high state of preparedness for every known contingency until all threats to world peace have been permanently neutralized!

Those "threats" should be defined as: Any person, group, or nation that initiates violence and/or fails to recognize the right of another to exist, be secure in their property, and live in peace!

And any person, group, or nation that demonstrates such a propensity by either threat or violence, should be denied all future access to or development of military hardware, particularly WMDs!

And among the worst cases that refuse to comply; some might even forfeit their own right to exist!

Evil is very easy to detect and should never be tolerated by people who are serious about world peace!
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

[/B]

You're an apologist for US atrocity, and you've some company with that. Lol. Of course the Truman library will be defensive of Truman deeds.

To the bolded. Good, then you support the work of P5+1!!!

I'm an apologist for no one. The dropping of a more efficient weapon on a military is a positive result of a very unfortunate situation. You yourself are an apologist for Japanese atrocities which far outnumber anything the U.S. did by dropping two bombs (one of which was easily avoided by the Japanese if they had only agreed to the surrender terms) by accusing FDR of provoking Japan to attack the US.

I regret the U.S. was put into this position but I support Truman's difficult decision. And if you are going to impugn Truman's documents, then don't be disingenuous by quoting those documents when you are able to pluck out a quote you agree with.

Japan has become a respected member of the world community in part because of the support and encouragement of the U.S. during the post war period. You can sit back in your easy chair shouting atrocity but in the context of the time before 6 August 1945, dropping the bomb was viewed as saving more US lives. 9 August was preventable by the Japanese--even you haven't disputed that.

And when I choose to support or disagree with something, you will have MY words stating that fact.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?[W:296]

All rational nations, governments, and people advocate a nuke free world; which does include the US_

But only the complete idiots* would throw away their guns with Charles Manson living across the street!

The problem with these "advocacy groups" is that many of them are *complete idiots and others are simply far-left advocates that are more concerned about the best interests of America's enemies_


The good guys absolutely must maintain a high state of preparedness for every known contingency until all threats to world peace have been permanently neutralized!

Those "threats" should be defined as: Any person, group, or nation that initiates violence and/or fails to recognize the right of another to exist, be secure in their property, and live in peace!

And any person, group, or nation that demonstrates such a propensity by either threat or violence, should be denied all future access to or development of military hardware, particularly WMDs!

And among the worst cases that refuse to comply; some might even forfeit their own right to exist!

Evil is very easy to detect and should never be tolerated by people who are serious about world peace!

IOW, the nuclear powers keep theirs and nobody else gets any, nice. That's not a nuke free world.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

I'm an apologist for no one. The dropping of a more efficient weapon on a military is a positive result of a very unfortunate situation. You yourself are an apologist for Japanese atrocities which far outnumber anything the U.S. did by dropping two bombs (one of which was easily avoided by the Japanese if they had only agreed to the surrender terms) by accusing FDR of provoking Japan to attack the US.

I regret the U.S. was put into this position but I support Truman's difficult decision. And if you are going to impugn Truman's documents, then don't be disingenuous by quoting those documents when you are able to pluck out a quote you agree with.

Japan has become a respected member of the world community in part because of the support and encouragement of the U.S. during the post war period. You can sit back in your easy chair shouting atrocity but in the context of the time before 6 August 1945, dropping the bomb was viewed as saving more US lives. 9 August was preventable by the Japanese--even you haven't disputed that.

And when I choose to support or disagree with something, you will have MY words stating that fact.

Justifying the use of nukes, is justifying the use of nukes.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Justifying the use of nukes, is justifying the use of nukes.
I refer you to the last sentence of the Potsdam Declaration. Potsdam Declaration | Birth of the Constitution of Japan

This sentence should be have been taken as seriously as the statements by the leaders in Tehran.
Tehran's leaders are Islamic religious radicals and Montecresto is a far-left ideopolitical radical_

Their indoctrination has rendered them incapable of processing neither common sense or rational thought!


IOW, the nuclear powers keep theirs and nobody else gets any, nice. That's not a nuke free world.
You're right Monty; that is not a nuke free world_

But it definitely does stop their spread; which decreases the likelihood of their use!

Which translates to a safer world while we're working on making it a nuke free world__get it?!

You don't seem to understand that the United States is the good guys and radical Islam is the bad guys?!

And the following directly pertains to what I was saying in the last 5 sentences of Post 606_

I refer you to the 6th sentence of the Potsdam Declaration which AliHajiSheik included in Post 610_

6. "There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world."

Now do you understand why Iran can't be permitted to develop a nuke?!
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Tehran's leaders are Islamic religious radicals and Montecresto is a far-left ideopolitical radical_

Their indoctrination has rendered them incapable of processing neither common sense or rational thought!


You're right Monty; that is not a nuke free world_

But it definitely does stop their spread; which decreases the likelihood of their use!

Which translates to a safer world while we're working on making it a nuke free world__get it?!

You don't seem to understand that the United States is the good guys and radical Islam is the bad guys?!

And the following directly pertains to what I was saying in the last 5 sentences of Post 606_

I refer you to the 6th sentence of the Potsdam Declaration which AliHajiSheik included in Post 610_

6. "There must be eliminated for all time the authority and influence of those who have deceived and misled the people of Japan into embarking on world conquest, for we insist that a new order of peace, security and justice will be impossible until irresponsible militarism is driven from the world."

Now do you understand why Iran can't be permitted to develop a nuke?!

pff! The existence of nuclear weapons makes the world less safe. So far, one country has used them with justification from the hawks and apologists.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

I refer you to the last sentence of the Potsdam Declaration. Potsdam Declaration | Birth of the Constitution of Japan

This sentence should be have been taken as seriously as the statements by the leaders in Tehran.

I'm familiar with it, what's your point. That we warned them before we dropped nuclear weapons on two civilian targets? How nice. The point remains, that the US has used these awful weapons, has sought in some circles to justify it, while wringing their hands over a hypothetical with Iran, lol. Pathetic.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

I'm familiar with it, what's your point. That we warned them before we dropped nuclear weapons on two civilian targets? How nice. The point remains, that the US has used these awful weapons, has sought in some circles to justify it, while wringing their hands over a hypothetical with Iran, lol. Pathetic.

They were military targets and afterwards they weren't. More died in Tokyo due to conventional bombing and yet even after the major damage in one city Japan refused to surrender. If you can't see the difference, that is your issue. But your false assertion will not go unchallenged. I'm neither hawk nor apologist, I recognize the history of the event and the knowledge that the people had who made the decision at that point in time. You just have your own moral certainty using nothing more than hindsight. You are probably sad the sub that sunk the cruiser Indianapolis didn't strike a few days earlier.

Iran is making threats and should be taken seriously. Moral equivalence is pathetic.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

They were military targets and afterwards they weren't. More died in Tokyo due to conventional bombing and yet even after the major damage in one city Japan refused to surrender. If you can't see the difference, that is your issue. But your false assertion will not go unchallenged. I'm neither hawk nor apologist, I recognize the history of the event and the knowledge that the people had who made the decision at that point in time. You just have your own moral certainty using nothing more than hindsight. You are probably sad the sub that sunk the cruiser Indianapolis didn't strike a few days earlier.

Iran is making threats and should be taken seriously. Moral equivalence is pathetic.

Good god, what is wrong with you, 200,000 plus civilians died and you call it military targets. And while your bringing up Tokyo, that two constituted US war crimes.

LeMay was aware of the implication of his orders.*
He also remarked that had the U.S. lost the war, he fully expected to be tried for war crimes.[19]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

Iran has no nuclear weapons, and according to our intelligence agencies, and that of Israel, both concluded that Iran isn't even working on them.
 
Last edited:
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Good god, what is wrong with you, 200,000 plus civilians died and you call it military targets. And while your bringing up Tokyo, that two constituted US war crimes.

LeMay was aware of the implication of his orders.*
He also remarked that had the U.S. lost the war, he fully expected to be tried for war crimes.[19]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

Iran has no nuclear weapons, and according to our intelligence agencies, and that of Israel, both concluded that Iran isn't even working on them.

I call the cities military targets, not the people. Hindsight moralism doesn't change the decision that was made. Read your own link about it not being his decision to make. Even his actual statement wasn't quoted correctly in the reference 19. Also read what LeMay said about war being an immoral act.

Again, shame on the Japanese leaders for not surrendering and saving their people from such misery--conventional and atomic. In that war, the net effect wasn't much different. 60 million people died during the war and your hindsight is focusing on perhaps 200k including those in the military and those who worked in the factories. Yes, and their families and neighbors. Truman dropped the bombs to get the war to end more quickly. It worked.

The rape of Nanking was worse than the bombs dropping but I only know that through hindsight. 70 years later gives us the perspective of history. Truman didn't have that luxury although I suspect he wishes he did. You would rather damn him. That is sad.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

I call the cities military targets, not the people. Hindsight moralism doesn't change the decision that was made. Read your own link about it not being his decision to make. Even his actual statement wasn't quoted correctly in the reference 19. Also read what LeMay said about war being an immoral act.

Again, shame on the Japanese leaders for not surrendering and saving their people from such misery--conventional and atomic. In that war, the net effect wasn't much different. 60 million people died during the war and your hindsight is focusing on perhaps 200k including those in the military and those who worked in the factories. Yes, and their families and neighbors. Truman dropped the bombs to get the war to end more quickly. It worked.

The rape of Nanking was worse than the bombs dropping but I only know that through hindsight. 70 years later gives us the perspective of history. Truman didn't have that luxury although I suspect he wishes he did. You would rather damn him. That is sad.

Well certainly, shame on the Japanese for many things that day and time. You can however characterize civilian cities targeted as being military targets all you wish, it cannot change the fact that civilians are not legitimate military targets and your attempts to justify it aren't as sick as the acts themselves, but deplorable, nevertheless.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Well, I find it a bit odd that people express so much fear about Iran possessing nuke capabilities and don't see the need to shut down Pakistan's nuke bomb program. That's a disaster waiting to happen. In fact, I would worry much more about Pakistan than say North Korea or Iran (at this particular moment). Radical groups like ISIS - already know where their prize is. They don't have to wait for nuke programs to be developed in the Middle East. It's there for the taking. Pakistani government officials don't have all that much control over the bombs they have. And Pakistan has, on a number of occasions, threatened to nuke India.

But to answer the poll. No, Iran shouldn't have a nuke bomb program.

The question wasn't about whether or not they should, but whether or not they posses the right. You're correct about Pakistan, and yet we don't hear concern about their nukes.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

pff! The existence of nuclear weapons makes the world less safe. So far, one country has used them with justification from the hawks and apologists.
I'm going to ask you one last time Monty, and if you dodge the question again; we're through here!

Will preventing Iran from building nuclear bombs make the world a safer place??? Yes? or No?
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

I'm going to ask you one last time Monty, and if you dodge the question again; we're through here!

Will preventing Iran from building nuclear bombs make the world a safer place??? Yes? or No?

I'd say YES. besides countries have powers, not rights
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

I'm going to ask you one last time Monty, and if you dodge the question again; we're through here!

Will preventing Iran from building nuclear bombs make the world a safer place??? Yes? or No?

Of course it will, I thought I've already answered that. I've also long supported global nuclear eradication, that would make the world even safer. There are six countries fast at work to ensure that Iran doesn't develop nuclear weapons and establish a system to verify that end. I think you need to stop worrying, and fear mongering about Iran.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Of course it will, I thought I've already answered that.
Then why all the fuss about halting the spread of nukes to Iran and other such nations, not yet so equipped?!

I've also long supported global nuclear eradication, that would make the world even safer.
Really Monty; and what sane rational human being doesn't, for chrisake?!

Are you aware that the first step in the "eradication" of nuclear bombs is preventing new ones from being built?!

The problem Monty; is that your so-called "support" almost entirely involves bashing the United States which is why no one except a handful of other America hating radicals bother to take you seriously_

Like most leftists; you believe it is more important to hate America than to actually solve a problem!

There are six countries fast at work to ensure that Iran doesn't develop nuclear weapons and establish a system to verify that end.
And what difference does that make when the only plan proposed by the most powerful man in the world ensures that Iran will develop nuclear weapons?!

I think you need to stop worrying, and fear mongering about Iran.
Reacting to a threat delivered by radical religious/political leaders of a known terrorist nation is not "fear mongering"!

But you consider such fear to be irrational__"Fear is a survival tool / Irrational fear is paranoia"

Poor Monty; do you seriously believe anyone who considers a nuclear armed Iran as a threat, is actually irrational?

Especially when 300+million Americans must rely on the weakest US President in history, to neutralize this threat!
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Then why all the fuss about halting the spread of nukes to Iran and other such nations, not yet so equipped?!

Really Monty; and what sane rational human being doesn't, for chrisake?!

Are you aware that the first step in the "eradication" of nuclear bombs is preventing new ones from being built?!

The problem Monty; is that your so-called "support" almost entirely involves bashing the United States which is why no one except a handful of other America hating radicals bother to take you seriously_

Like most leftists; you believe it is more important to hate America than to actually solve a problem!

And what difference does that make when the only plan proposed by the most powerful man in the world ensures that Iran will develop nuclear weapons?!

Reacting to a threat delivered by radical religious/political leaders of a known terrorist nation is not "fear mongering"!

But you consider such fear to be irrational__"Fear is a survival tool / Irrational fear is paranoia"

Poor Monty; do you seriously believe anyone who considers a nuclear armed Iran as a threat, is actually irrational?

Especially when 300+million Americans must rely on the weakest US President in history, to neutralize this threat!

Right, you're reduced to name calling, and questioning loyalty as you show up regularly to **** on the president. I support the work of the P5+1, which would deny Iranian nukes. I don't know what you support other than war, WAR!!!
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Well certainly, shame on the Japanese for many things that day and time. You can however characterize civilian cities targeted as being military targets all you wish, it cannot change the fact that civilians are not legitimate military targets and your attempts to justify it aren't as sick as the acts themselves, but deplorable, nevertheless.

An excellent article discussing the morality of the situation. I do have some disagreement but not a lot. I suspect the same is true for you: The Atomic Bombings Reconsidered | Foreign Affairs. The last section entitled "THE REDEFINITION OF MORALITY" acknowledges your position and doesn't necessarily agree with mine. Again, I look at it in the context of the times and what was known and the decision Truman made. An atomic bomb had never been used so it wasn't entirely clear what would happen, including it being a dud.

I never said that this was a proud moment for the US, but I understand why it was done. The fact that there were so many civilians did not keep these cities from being targeted, but I do not believe that there was any reason to avoid them--again, in the context of the situation and the times. Wars are bad, and no war is better than a short war and a short war is better than a long one. I also believe that having real life examples of the horrors of atomic and nuclear weapons has been a valuable lesson in the horrors of their use. My point that targeting a bomb to hit a target doesn't mean that civilians were specifically targeted. As the article indicated, the War changed the standards of morality and not necessarily for the better. You don't care about that context but I'm satisfied my point has been made.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Let's get one thing out of the way. I'm not a Christian and I'm uninterested in Christian teaching on war. Christian teaching is second only to Islamic teaching in justifying war. I much prefer the practical calculus of the veteran warrior, which almost always results in fewer deaths. The War Department projection of 46,000 dead is what Giangreco demonstrates was always a phony number. His work relies on previously unknown or ignored documents that were never part of any narrative, conventional or otherwise.

That doesn't mean the projections were A) valid, or B) unchallenged, or C) something that ends the debate. Nor does it change that terror was used to make political gain, and on civilians not soldiers. This was immoral, Christian or not. Christianity is just one one moral gauge. It might be practical to kill children or rape women, but that practicality won't make it moral.
 
Back
Top Bottom