issuevoter wrote on Jan 7
th, 2019 at 8:26am:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 7
th, 2019 at 8:09am:
issuevoter wrote on Dec 24
th, 2018 at 5:30pm:
You believe the religious tyrants of Iran should have nuclear weapons.
Not true issue - but I've already pointed that out to you several times.
Not true? You questioned why it would not be fair for Iran, under religious fanatics (like yourself), to have nuclear weapons, because the West has them. You were not being either pragmatic or impartial, you were obliquely supporting nuclear weapons for the Islamic Republic of Iran, the clerical leaders of which, have stated Israel will not exist in 10 years. That is now down to about 7. You are a liar for Islam, and you are so shallow, you are not even aware of your own transparency.
Issue raises a couple of important issues (so to speak) that I think are relevant to the global problem of nuclear proliferation.
He alludes to the evil Iranian regime and how abhorrent it is for them to acquire nuclear weapons on account of their alleged threat to wipe Israel off the map.
I agree with one thing - how abhorrent it would be for Iran to acquire nukes. Thats something I think we can all agree on. But for me the real issue is that of incentive and what drives nations to acquire nukes. In my view it is the most infantile and crass argument to merely point at Iran, or for that matter North Korea and say "evil regime - bad - they want to acquire nukes to destroy us and spread their evil - because their evil - gah!" Sure, nukes are evil, and yes, being evil per se would undoubtedly be a reason in and of itself to acquire nukes.
But lets get real - it is simply absurd to try and understand the motivation for acquiring nukes without considering the global nuclear monopolies that exist today. Iran is a particularly salient case in this regards. Focusing only on a completely mythical existential threat to Israel is laughable - when ignoring the fact that Israel is literally the only nation in the region with the military capability of "wiping" a country "off the map" - courtesty of being the sole nuclear power. The only
actual existential threat that exists in the middle east, is that posed by Israel towards its neighbours. Thus to dismiss this as the most relevant factor in understanding Iran's (alleged) desire to acquire nukes, is simply absurd. Yet, in most mainstream discussions on the topic, it is only viewed through the prism of Iran the aggressor.
So the question I posed, which issue so badly mutilated - is how can we expect Iran to give up nuclear ambitions while the country that openly threatens and taunts them has a huge arsenal of them, and is allowed to keep them? And even more absurdly, how can we not understand Iran's nuclear ambitions within the context of simple self-defense/deterrence against this overt existential threat that they face? It has nothing to do with "not fair" or "its their right" - its just a common sense way of approaching a workable solution to what we all want - non-proliferation of nukes.
How do we expect *ANY* non-nuclear nation to not want and pursue nukes while ever other nations - especially nations they see as a threat - maintain exclusive rights to their existing arsenals of nukes?
Basically, you want a realistic and workable roadmap to global denuclearisation? Start with existing nuclear powers at least conceding that its not reasonable or practical to stamp out proliferation/attempted proliferation by non-nuclear nations until they relinquish exclusive rights to their nukes.