12-1-13

Nuclear Iran

With the recent ongoing talks in Switzerland on halting Iran's nuclear program for "modest" relief from economic sanctions, I couldn't help but wonder why not let Iran have a nuclear weapon?

A lot will wonder why I'm spewing such madness, but crazier is to know that only one country ever has used nuclear weapons! I know Iran is considered a failed or rogue state and has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, but should Iran be kept from developing a nuclear weapon? The economic sanctions are crippling Iran's economy but only more devastating that it's putting straits on people, medications, and other essentials are in law supply. Many say it's caused the Iranian regime to come to the bargaining table.

But if the U.S. doesn't want to see Iran with a nuclear weapon, then why should the U.S. have dictatorial powers to say who can have a nuclear weapon?

My position is for NO nuclear weapons or proliferation. How many wonder what countries have nuclear weapons and who their allies are? Furthermore, is something more sinister going on? How about that with a nuclear Iran, Israel's position, power, and say-so in the Middle East wane? If you think about the unevenness of being the only state or state without a nuclear weapon, it's a tremendous disadvantage.

Look at North Korea and how, in reality, their nuclear weapons after U.S. and co. from attacking her. Quick factoid: The U.S. was the only one in 1962 to cast the dissenting vote in the UN on a treaty to outlaw nuclear weapons.

People should not only wonder who has nuclear weapons, but what threat they pose to us all if used. And if one country nukes another, they in turn nuke them and now you have allies throwing nukes. Then we're all fucked. Better to have none, but more better to not let one nation have dictatorial powers of who shall carry them.