DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**abossakon** · 12-04-2010, 07:51 PM

Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Iran to take US to UN over 'threat'

The question is, why isn't the US nuclear policy simply "we will not use a nuclear weapon first" instaed of this non-sense.

what kind of savagery is threatening to use a nuclear weapon first against a country that "might" have one or might be working on one, especially after a million Iraqis have died because "maybe" Saddam had 'chemical weapons'.

Surely the combined conventional arms of America and it's allies in the region are sufficient to defend against iran, so why an ambiguous nuclear threat?

I seriously question Obama's 'liberal' credentials and the Nobel Peace Prize which was given to him.

When dealing with countries like Iran or North Korea, diplomacy only go as far as the willingness of their leaders. However, when a country has nuclear weapons, it gives pause to countries like Iran on how direct their confrontation would be. That is why you are seeing them use the Israeli card, the Palestinian card, and the anti American card to attempt to prove their point. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, it is pointed at Israel. If North Korea has nuclear weapons, it is pointed at Japan. If either of these countries are attacked, our defense agreements will be to ensure our allies are protected and thus use of nuclear weapons will be authorized. As such, a world war will ensue similar to WWI consumed the world.

Nuclear non proliferation, and the treaty, dealt with the spread of nuclear materials for military purposes. It was never intended to ban nuclear weapons or their use. That is a different treaty.

12-04-2010, 07:51 PM	#10
abossakon Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 540 Senior Member	Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Iran to take US to UN over 'threat' The question is, why isn't the US nuclear policy simply "we will not use a nuclear weapon first" instaed of this non-sense. what kind of savagery is threatening to use a nuclear weapon first against a country that "might" have one or might be working on one, especially after a million Iraqis have died because "maybe" Saddam had 'chemical weapons'. Surely the combined conventional arms of America and it's allies in the region are sufficient to defend against iran, so why an ambiguous nuclear threat? I seriously question Obama's 'liberal' credentials and the Nobel Peace Prize which was given to him. When dealing with countries like Iran or North Korea, diplomacy only go as far as the willingness of their leaders. However, when a country has nuclear weapons, it gives pause to countries like Iran on how direct their confrontation would be. That is why you are seeing them use the Israeli card, the Palestinian card, and the anti American card to attempt to prove their point. If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, it is pointed at Israel. If North Korea has nuclear weapons, it is pointed at Japan. If either of these countries are attacked, our defense agreements will be to ensure our allies are protected and thus use of nuclear weapons will be authorized. As such, a world war will ensue similar to WWI consumed the world. Nuclear non proliferation, and the treaty, dealt with the spread of nuclear materials for military purposes. It was never intended to ban nuclear weapons or their use. That is a different treaty.
	Quote