• 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
Yes, because it is unfair that countries like US have hundreds of nuclear weapons that they can use to threaten anyone but Iran cannot. I think they should be allowed to have nuclear weapons as a means of self-defence, not out of an apocalyptic urge, under the same philosophy as the gun law.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

And who was the moron that decided to remove their biggest enemy in the region and upset the balance between Shia and Sunni again?

Bush's Fault! Let it go man.

The battle between Sunni and Shia is ages old.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Bush's Fault! Let it go man.

The battle between Sunni and Shia is ages old.

True enough. And Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi, Assad and others contained it.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Bush's Fault! Let it go man.

The battle between Sunni and Shia is ages old.

But Bush decided we should get in the middle of it in 2002 and sent 1000's of Americans to their deaths. You need to embrace the horror.
 
Yes, because it is unfair that countries like US have hundreds of nuclear weapons that they can use to threaten anyone but Iran cannot. I think they should be allowed to have nuclear weapons as a means of self-defence, not out of an apocalyptic urge, under the same philosophy as the gun law.

You probably feel the same way about Cuba and Venezuela. They deserve self defense as well. You probably want North Korea to also have ICBMs to really be able to protect itself.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

But Bush decided we should get in the middle of it in 2002 and sent 1000's of Americans to their deaths. You need to embrace the horror.

No you need to read history
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. There is no universal standard regarding the killing of civilians in war.

The documents that are the foundation of Giangreco's argument were unavailable or overlooked before his work. It is likely the historians you cited never saw them until he referenced them.

Well, in ethic circles, it's universally wrong. And no, they likely saw them and did not give as much weight to them as you do. And I think I've explained why.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - World War II - HISTORY.com
"Japan, however, vowed to fight to the bitter end in the Pacific, despite clear indications (as early as 1944) that they had little chance of winning. In fact, between mid-April 1945 (when President Harry Truman took office) and mid-July, Japanese forces inflicted Allied casualties totaling nearly half those suffered in three full years of war in the Pacific, proving that Japan had become even more deadly when faced with defeat.

In late July, Japan’s militarist government rejected the Allied demand for surrender
put forth in the Potsdam Declaration, which threatened the Japanese with “prompt and utter destruction” if they refused.

On August 6, 1945, during World War II (1939-45), an American B-29 bomber dropped the world’s first deployed atomic bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The explosion wiped out 90 percent of the city and immediately killed 80,000 people; tens of thousands more would later die of radiation exposure. Three days later, a second B-29 dropped another A-bomb on Nagasaki, killing an estimated 40,000 people. Japan’s Emperor Hirohito announced his country’s unconditional surrender in World War II in a radio address on August 15, citing the devastating power of “a new and most cruel bomb.”"


What on earth could possibly be more persuasive than these surreal images of the total and utter destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after a single bomb was detonated 2000 feet over each of them?!

Only a delusional ideologue would suggest that the primary factors for Japan's surrender was something other than the devastating results of Fat Man and Little Boy!
View attachment 67182405View attachment 67182406

"General Douglas MacArthur and other top military commanders favored continuing the conventional bombing of Japan already in effect and following up with a massive invasion, codenamed “Operation Downfall.” They advised Truman that such an invasion would result in U.S. casualties of up to 1 million."

And regardless of the horror; the nuclear option was necessary to save an estimated 1 million Allied casualties!

Yes, you cite nothing new there. But it is unlikely that the Nuke was necessary. Still, Losing military life in a war is more acceptable than civilian life. And we took a lot of civilian lives, more if you count the long term effects of the radiation. It wasn't moral. And by justifying it, you make the case for every terrorist group out there that the ends justify the means.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Well, in ethic circles, it's universally wrong. And no, they likely saw them and did not give as much weight to them as you do. And I think I've explained why.

The common characteristic of "ethics circles" is a lack of real world experience. And no, I think your cited authors had never seen Giangreco's sources.

[h=3]http://www.usni.org/store/books/audio-books/hell-pay#[/h] [h=3][/h][h=3]Arthur Goodzeit Award for Best Military History Book of 2009 Awarded by the New York Military Affairs Symposium[/h]
Hell To Pay is a comprehensive and compelling examination of the myriad complex issues that comprised the strategic plans for the American invasion of Japan. U.S. planning for the invasion and military occupation of Imperial Japan was begun in 1943, two years before the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In its final form, Operation Downfall called for a massive Allied invasion—on a scale dwarfing "D-Day"—to be carried out in two stages. In the first stage, Operation Olympic, the U.S. Sixth Army would lead the southern-most assault on the Home Island of Kyushu preceded by the dropping of as many as nine atom bombs behind the landing beaches. Sixth Army would secure airfields and anchorages needed to launch the second stage, Operation Coronet, 500 miles to the north in 1946. The decisive Coronet invasion of the industrial heartland of Japan through the Tokyo Plain would be led by the Eighth Army, as well as the First Army, which had previously pummeled its way across France and Germany to defeat the Nazis.

These facts are well known and have been recounted—with varying degrees of accuracy—in a variety of books and articles. A common theme in these works is their reliance on a relatively few declassified high-level planning documents. An attempt to fully understand how both the U.S. and Japan planned to conduct the massive battles subsequent to the initial landings was not dealt with in these books beyond the skeletal U.S. outlines formulated nine months before the initial land battles were to commence, and more than a year before the anticipated climactic series of battles near Tokyo. On the Japanese side, plans for Operation Ketsu-go, the "decisive battle" in the Home Islands, have been unexamined below the strategic level and seldom consisted of more than a list of the units involved and a rehash of U.S. intelligence estimates of Kamikaze aircraft available for the defense of Kyushu.



Hell to Pay examines the invasion of Japan in light of the large body of Japanese and American operational and tactical planning documents unearthed by the author in both familiar and obscure archives, as well as postwar interrogations and reports that senior Japanese commanders and their staffs were ordered to produce for General MacArthur's headquarters. Hell to Pay clarifies the political and military ramifications of the enormous casualties and loss of material projected by both sides in the climatic struggle to bring the Pacific War to a conclusion through a brutal series of battles on Japanese soil. This groundbreaking history counters the revisionist interpretations questioning the rationale for the use of the atom bomb and shows that President Truman's decision was based on very real estimates of the truly horrific cost of a conventional invasion of Japan.


D. M. Giangreco served for more than twenty years as an editor for Military Review, published by the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He has written and lectured widely on national security matters, and is an award-winning author of numerous articles and eleven books, including Dear Harry...Truman's Mailroom, 1945-1973.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

The common characteristic of "ethics circles" is a lack of real world experience. And no, I think your cited authors had never seen Giangreco's sources.

[h=3]http://www.usni.org/store/books/audio-books/hell-pay#[/h] [h=3][/h][h=3]Arthur Goodzeit Award for Best Military History Book of 2009 Awarded by the New York Military Affairs Symposium[/h]
Hell To Pay is a comprehensive and compelling examination of the myriad complex issues that comprised the strategic plans for the American invasion of Japan. U.S. planning for the invasion and military occupation of Imperial Japan was begun in 1943, two years before the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In its final form, Operation Downfall called for a massive Allied invasion—on a scale dwarfing "D-Day"—to be carried out in two stages. In the first stage, Operation Olympic, the U.S. Sixth Army would lead the southern-most assault on the Home Island of Kyushu preceded by the dropping of as many as nine atom bombs behind the landing beaches. Sixth Army would secure airfields and anchorages needed to launch the second stage, Operation Coronet, 500 miles to the north in 1946. The decisive Coronet invasion of the industrial heartland of Japan through the Tokyo Plain would be led by the Eighth Army, as well as the First Army, which had previously pummeled its way across France and Germany to defeat the Nazis.

These facts are well known and have been recounted—with varying degrees of accuracy—in a variety of books and articles. A common theme in these works is their reliance on a relatively few declassified high-level planning documents. An attempt to fully understand how both the U.S. and Japan planned to conduct the massive battles subsequent to the initial landings was not dealt with in these books beyond the skeletal U.S. outlines formulated nine months before the initial land battles were to commence, and more than a year before the anticipated climactic series of battles near Tokyo. On the Japanese side, plans for Operation Ketsu-go, the "decisive battle" in the Home Islands, have been unexamined below the strategic level and seldom consisted of more than a list of the units involved and a rehash of U.S. intelligence estimates of Kamikaze aircraft available for the defense of Kyushu.



Hell to Pay examines the invasion of Japan in light of the large body of Japanese and American operational and tactical planning documents unearthed by the author in both familiar and obscure archives, as well as postwar interrogations and reports that senior Japanese commanders and their staffs were ordered to produce for General MacArthur's headquarters. Hell to Pay clarifies the political and military ramifications of the enormous casualties and loss of material projected by both sides in the climatic struggle to bring the Pacific War to a conclusion through a brutal series of battles on Japanese soil. This groundbreaking history counters the revisionist interpretations questioning the rationale for the use of the atom bomb and shows that President Truman's decision was based on very real estimates of the truly horrific cost of a conventional invasion of Japan.


D. M. Giangreco served for more than twenty years as an editor for Military Review, published by the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He has written and lectured widely on national security matters, and is an award-winning author of numerous articles and eleven books, including Dear Harry...Truman's Mailroom, 1945-1973.

Again, this changes little to nothing. And morality that is so malleable as to be meaningless is having no morals at all. You give credence to the terrorist argument that the results justify the emans.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Again, this changes little to nothing. And morality that is so malleable as to be meaningless is having no morals at all. You give credence to the terrorist argument that the results justify the emans.

In most of history the ends do in fact justify the means. And you can say the above changes nothing, but that's just keeping your head in the sand.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

They have the right, but why do the need them? Mutually Assured Destruction?
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

They have the right, but why do the need them? Mutually Assured Destruction?

No country needs them, but if one has them, every other country will "have" to have them.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

It is important to remember President Obama's action was not with the agreement of Congress and was exactly opposite the USA's long standing policy towards Iran.

Yet no one wants to accept that was Barrack Obama's personal decision and his own agenda for whatever reasons. So this is the real question: Why would Barrack Hussein Obama PERSONALLY oppose the Muslim nation of Iran having nuclear weapons on ballistic missiles? Why would he personally oppose an arms race that would create a Muslim Middle East bristling with every increasing nuclear weapons on intercontinental ballistic missiles, on Muslim submarines and under the bellies of Muslim aircraft?

Personally, he has never made it a secret is view that the colonial and imperialist Judeo-Christian Western powers intrusions in the rest of the world were and are fundamentally evil and wrong. Unquestionable the Judeo-Christian West massively intruded into the Muslim M.E. and virtual every other Muslim country.

So PERSONALLY (since being lame duck that is now is only rational motive) why WOULDN'T he want Muslim countries armed with huge nuclear retaliatory potential weapons systems to end the USA and Western powers ever daring intrude into any the affairs or expansionism of ANY Muslim country?

What why would anyone think he would have ANY reason to PERSONALLY support, let alone favor, Israeli Jews? He was rather publicly outraged in his declaration of supporting Palestinian's agenda and condemning that of Israel's government.

That doesn't necessarily mean he is a Muslim himself - though I believe it does. But he certainly is no Jew. In his youth, his education and indoctrination was anti-Jew - both in his Muslim schooling and his Catholic schooling. He openly condemns America's and the West's (particularly the UK) past colonialism and imperialism. On no occasion has he ever withdrawn that view and upon election - even before - went on apology tours to the world apologizing for the USA's past in relation to the rest of the world.

For whatever reason, Barrack Obama is doing what he personally believes and has for a very long time. Being lame duck, he has no reason whatsoever to do anything but exactly what he personally wants to do for whatever personal reasons he has.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

They have the right, but why do the need them? Mutually Assured Destruction?

There is no such thing as a right to nuclear weapons. However, that is the reason, yes. In realistic terms it takes very few to accomplish that goal. Iran does have a submarine fleet. That and a few nuclear weapons and Iran will soon have the capacity to effectively obliterate the USA and the UK. NYC, DC, Chicago, LA, Houston, Miami, Atlanta and the USA economy is fully destroyed even if nothing else is hit.

Saudi Arabia now has no alternative but also to obtain a nuclear weapons arsenal. Egypt will want them but will have problems raising the money for them. A lot of them. So will Turkey.

CERTAINLY BY NOW no county doesn't understand to never rely on the USA or the West for defense of their country.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Again, this changes little to nothing. And morality that is so malleable as to be meaningless is having no morals at all. You give credence to the terrorist argument that the results justify the emans.

That logic doesn't work. Japan has a massive military and massive storehouse of weapons and aircraft, with plans for a genocidal fight the ends ultimately to Japan's mountains where their reserve armaments and aircraft was kept. They had a million troops in China to bring back.

It was not just a question of how many hundreds of thousands of Americans might have been killed, but how many millions upon millions of Japanese would be killed in the fight, with starvation and disease likely killing even more Japanese.

The "terrorism" would have been killing Japanese across the entire nation of Japan by the millions upon millions.

The two atomic bombing sent an exact message. The Emperor could not defend his palace or capital against an atomic bombing. We specifically did NOT bomb Tokyo NOR the largest Japanese population centers. If we killed the Emperor who could surrender? But if he wouldn't, that is exactly what would have happened. Him and the center of Japanese government would have been obliterated.

The usage of the atomic bombs was specifically 1.) to save American lives, 2.) to save Japanese lives and 3.) not have to kill the Emperor of Japan to facilitate a surrender. It worked exactly as hoped - saving countless millions of lives.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

True enough. And Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi, Assad and others contained it.

Agreed. However, Hussein poised a unique risk justifying the first Gulf War, when he should have been eliminated - but the government otherwise left intact. The second Gulf War was a mistake.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

True enough. And Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi, Assad and others contained it.

Containing it is not a solution, human rights and democracy is. That you support addressing a symptom with genocide is disgusting.
 
Nobody's reading all that.

Yes, because a person can only learn by talking. Besides, details are just annoying. It's cool slogans that matter. :roll:
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Containing it is not a solution, human rights and democracy is. That you support addressing a symptom with genocide is disgusting.

Unfortunately, TRUE genocide historically works if the goal is to eliminate an enemy because it is permanent and there is no chance of retaliation later.

Hitler did succeed in effectively purging Jews from Europe and anti-semitism has mostly purged Jews from most of the world to the extent of having no influence. Muslims are nearly 1/4th of the world's population and control enormous amounts of the earth. Did their genocides fail or succeed in comparison to the Jews. Who do people FEAR now and HAVE to work with, negotiate with, and make deals with on the world stage - Muslims or Jews?

It could be argued Jew's greatest mistake was to cease engaging in total genocidal submit-convert-or-die warfare 2900 years ago - but virtually no one else did.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Unfortunately, TRUE genocide historically works if the goal is to eliminate an enemy because it is permanent and there is no chance of retaliation later.

Irrelevant. The stated goal was the containment of sectarian strife. As I noted, the goal should not be containment, it should be solution. That the containment is acclaimed despite the means being genocide is flat-out disgusting.

Further, retaliation could come from others, so your irrelevant premise is BS.
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Irrelevant. The stated goal was the containment of sectarian strife. As I noted, the goal should not be containment, it should be solution. That the containment is acclaimed despite the means being genocide is flat-out disgusting.

Further, retaliation could come from others, so your irrelevant premise is BS.

Yes, it would be irrelevant if the only relevancy on the forum was you.

The Amerindians of the Caribbean were 100% genocided into non-existence 2 centuries ago.

How much longer before the "retaliation by others?"

You're idea of posting "BE NICE" signs in the ME isn't going to solve the conflict between Shia and Sunni. There is exactly NOTHING the West can do about that. Ever.

GENOCIDE is entirely relevant to THIS topic, which is not "Fantasize Of World Harmony", as that is the potential ability of Iran with nuclear weapons, just like it is for every nuclear power.
 
Last edited:
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

Yes, you cite nothing new there. But it is unlikely that the Nuke was necessary.
Unfortunately for you "nothing new" is more than enough; because it is what it is!

Still, Losing military life in a war is more acceptable than civilian life. And we took a lot of civilian lives, more if you count the long term effects of the radiation. It wasn't moral.
What an incredible crock of absolute poo-poo; Boo!

Most Americans have always preferred their leaders make wartime military lives a priority over enemy civilian casualties_

Especially when said war was initiated with a massive sneak attack by a ruthless enemy before it issued a Declaration of War!

And by justifying it,
Preventing an estimated one million American casualties absolutely "justify the means" and anyone who has ever served or had a friend or loved one in the military knows this!

you make the case for every terrorist group out there that the ends justify the means.
And the fact that you can actually compare the United States to a bunch of radical psycho Islamic terrorists only demonstrates your warped sense of priority!
 
Re: Does Iran have a "Right" to Nuclear Weapons?

They have the right, but why do the need them? Mutually Assured Destruction?
No country needs them, but if one has them, every other country will "have" to have them.
It's no longer a matter of a "right" or a "need" for the United States___It's now an obligation to humanity!
 
Back
Top Bottom