Israel; STILL Sabotaging Peace!!!

[Ben Huh]

Honestly, no one should have nukes. I understand why they were developed, we had to outrace the Nazis to their creation and had no interest in invading mainland Japan, however outside of one positive action, what other positives have come from the existence of nuclear weapons? As long as religion exist and creates hatred in human society, people that run governments based on religious texts should not have access to weapons that can destroy nations, or even civilizations in one strike. That's scarier to me than the US, a nation which absolutely has blood on its hands, having those same weapons. Ideally, they wouldn't be here, but we don't live in an ideal world. Since they are, we are forced to have conversations regarding who should or should not have them, and IMO those who believe in religion over humanity are the more evil on the list of people we think shouldn't have nuclear weapons than the United States.

[exploited]

Is it your contention that Iran would use these nuclear weapons in order to suicide-bomb Israel or perhaps Saudi Arabia? Beyond simply not liking religious people, you must have some concrete, specific concerns. Nuclear weapons saved many hundreds of thousands of lives when they were used, and prevented a massive war between the Soviet Union and the US for decades, so I'm not sure why you have such a negative opinion of them.

[Ben Huh]

Their religion is their reason for any of their actions, therefore it obviously becomes the primary reason I do not want them to have nuclear weapons. Unless of course, you are one of those liberals that breaks their backs to defend Islam. All religion is without reason or logic, so yes I do not want people that believe a pedophile flew a winged horse to the moon to have nuclear weapons. I do not want people that believe women are sub-human, gays are sub-human, infidels are sub-human to have nukes, and this includes all religion, not simply Islam. I'd prefer if the US didn't have nukes, but they do. What do we do about it in a world where people still intend to make and use these weapons recklessly, most of whom for religious means (including Israel since it is a religious state)? Disarm ourselves? The ideal world exist and the ideal one doesn't.

[exploited]

I'm not sure what your point is. For instance, imagine you had an ex-soldier who really wanted to talk about Benghazi, but he didn't really have a rational point to speak of. Now let's pretend he owns guns, despite a history characterized by not-too-serious mental health struggles. He has irrational beliefs, yes, he occasionally exhibits bizarre emotional behavior, yes, but should he be stripped of his guns and forbidden to purchase more of them, on the grounds that other people find him to be either hopelessly unintelligent or irrevocably irrational?

Basically, there is no indication that the Iranian government would ever decide to suicide-bomb Israel or any other country, and so pointing to various irrational but unrelated beliefs isn't a valid point. You personally being uncomfortable with their religious beliefs isn't a proper or reasonable basis for forbidding them from arming themselves. In the same way, it would be wrong of me to call for stripping this hypothetical soldier of his rights as a sovereign individual.

[Ben Huh]

Honestly, I don't want him having guns. I want improved background checks that include checking health records for any history of mental health issues, etc. The thing about most people that "snap" is that they almost always had no violent history, only one full of unresolved or untreated mental issues primarily depression and isolation effects, prior to becoming extremely violent. These people need help, not guns, as serious mental illnesses can have an affect on your ability to control your own behavior and actions, and those people should not have guns. Still yet, rational people that can still find a way to believe in religion and spread it through force scare me more than people who involuntarily suffer from a mental disorder that can lead them to becoming violent.

[exploited]

Well, at that point, we have to determine what degree of mental illness and instability will require prohibition. Which frankly is a very difficult and nuanced determination. To continue with this soldier analogy, what kind of soldier is Israel? What about Pakistan? China? Russia? North Korea? What was the apartheid regime in South Africa? Should they be treated the same, based upon likelihood of attacking other countries?

The only country that has ever used them offensively is the US, and they did so for reasons that are entirely rational. Specifically, nukes were used because not using them was actually more lethal. Is there any plausible circumstances in which Iran would face that same choice? Is there any evidence that Iran is a non-rational geopolitical actor? I don't think so. What they do may be in opposition to what other people do, but that does not make them any less capable of not suicide-bombing another country.

Further, the overwhelming evidence suggests that Iran actually has no real interest in nuclear weapons beyond being able, if needed, to build them. There are dozens of countries who could easily build a nuclear weapon but choose not. Further, the use of nuclear weapons is a guaranteed death sentence, except for maybe the US, China and Russia against a third world country. Iran doesn't want the expense of an arms race with Saudi Arabia. What they want is the option, the same option extended to most other sovereign states (but especially those who are historically the most aggressive Western states).

Which is perfectly reasonable IMO. Unless we take a principled stand against all nuclear weapons ownership, and start by getting rid of them, there is an incentive for smaller states to have them. Further, unless we start abiding by international law, and not just push over foreign states and governments whenever we feel like it, we can't expect those states/governments to respect international law. Iran will develop the ability to produce nuclear weapons, period. We can delay it, we can kill people over it, but ultimately they will become nuclear capable. And when that happens I would rather be friends than bitter enemies who came to a forced agreement.

[Ben Huh]

Absolutely, they should be treated the same, but most totalitarian governments are ran by theocratic texts or concepts anyways, so they are often one in the same. I have already said, I think there should be no nukes, but that is a harder reality to achieve when one, evil people with less restraint then us will always exist, and secondly, those same people want the weapons we already have. You bring up good points, none of which I disagree with, but the current reality is that if we get rid of ours, they still make and use theirs. We have forced our hands to keep ours as a deterrent. Do I think Iran would have the restraint not to bomb any nation? No. I can't say that as a fact. Sure, the US has nuked someone, but they at least went through political red tape to get to that point and that same red tape has prevented us from using them since. Can you say the same thing about the constraints of Iran's government?

[exploited]

[Ben Huh]

[exploited]

So, just to be clear, what you're saying is that you don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons (or the capacity to build them) because you don't want them to have more influence in the region? Or is it that they are religious extremists, and therefore a greater risk? Or both?

I disagree with that for a number of reasons. First and foremost, Iran (Persia) was a natural American ally, and your relationship was sabotaged by Cold War logic. That War is over. Iran can be made into a productive partner in the region, like they were for most of American history. Right up until the 1940s, Iran and the US were friendly. Iran had a constitutional revolution in 1909, and once Parliament asserted control of the country, they appointed an American, Morgan Shuster, to the post of Treasurer General. That only ended when Russia (with the help of the f**k British) shelled the parliament and forced Shuster to resign. Anyways, once WWII happened, the Russians and British installed the Shah, then in the 1950s (with the CIA), overthrew the best chance for a democratic, friendly Iran there was. The end result was the extremism and hostility we've seen ever since.

In addition to the idea that Iran was a natural ally, I firmly prefer them to Saudi Arabia, the most repressive Islamic state in the entire world. Frankly, the idea that we need to bend to the Saudis for energy considerations is pretty obsolete at this point. The Saudi need to sell their oil, period. They need to sell it dirt cheap, period. If they don't, they are truly screwed. So let's stop coddling the sick f**k and start getting to the root of the problem over there, which is that we are allied with all the wrong people for all the wrong reasons. The only downside to this policy would be the potential of a power vacuum (namely some other actor filling the role as Saudi Arabian patron state), but like I said, I'd prefer that our regional policy in the ME was based off of common decency and respect for history, rather than the cold illogic of some wartime British tactician eighty years ago.

Anyways, as per the religious extremism, I'm not convinced that this disqualifies sovereign states from arming themselves, given the fact that other states hostile to them (often for simply bizarre reasons) have them. As you said, Israel has nuclear weapons, and many in their government can be described as extremist. But should Israel not have them? I don't think so. I think it makes sense for Israel to have nuclear weapons, given the reality of how many invasions they faced without them. In the same way, I feel a great deal of sympathy for why Iran wants the ability to produce them, especially if it helps counter the influence of Saudi Arabia, which is a disgusting, primitive and vicious country that should repulse any Westerner in their right mind. Why shouldn't Persia have a say in the region? Why shouldn't Iran become nuclear capable given the fact that the only country that's ever nuked another has acted with extreme aggression towards them, even going so far as to sell Saddam Hussein chemical weapons that were later used on Iranians?

The only government to ever use nuclear weapons offensively was a democracy. I don't think there is any way to argue that democratic nations are more trustworthy with nuclear weapons. Stability is a good measure, but Iran is pretty stable all considering, and would be WAY more stable if we weren't obsessed with sodomizing them ruthlessly.