Iran

[ZEGH8578]

Even North Korea has nukes, and a sworn enemy even, and no nuclear holocaust.

North Korea's nuclear arsenal is nothing compared to the arsenal the US has. North Korea would only be able to take out one American state at best whereas the US could obliterate the entire country.

Of course, not without a lot of radiation spilling into South Korea and China. The US is allies with South Korea and they do not want to piss off China.

NK isn't about taking out American states, it's about nuking Seoul China did a similar reminder with their own arsenal - not officially - as unofficially as it gets, scower the Wikileaks for it - but they admitted that their own nuclear arsenal is primarily "meant" for Taiwan (Republic of China)
This makes tactical sense, since NK has sworn to retake the south, and PRC has sworn to retake the ROC - and these ambitions outweigh any opposition they might have against America. If "shit hit the fan" between mainland and insular China, the nuclear arsenal would ensure that the war was as brief as possible, and mainland China would simply step off the boats, and retake the island, without much infantry fighting.

China has also (in Wikileaks) admitted to not giving a shit anout NK, and that if they do invade SK, they will not oppose a western intervention.

So, it still comes back to common sense - NK has the nukes, they have no real allies, they have nothing to lose - they could start launching those nukes on Seoul today, right this moment, but they won't because it's too destructive a thing to do, it backfires too hard. It's easy to think of "pariah countries" as illogical and cooky, but they DO posess a survival instinct

[MLA]

they go into Gaza every couple of years to "mow the lawn", and have poured white phosphorus over schools and hospitals

You answered your own question.  They can't have nukes because they would use them.f

No i didn't.  And you quoted me like i was asking why Israel couldn't have them. Apart from Israeli propaganda, what evidence suggests Iran would use nukes?  Israel goes on about the danger of Iran having them when Israel has used chemical weapons on schools and hospitals.

Also, the US have used nukes, why are they allowed them?

Because they invented them, and who the fuck is going to take them away?

[Jack]

Also, the US have used nukes, why are they allowed them?

The same reason all UN security council members are allowed, world nuclear arms treaty.

[odeon]

they go into Gaza every couple of years to "mow the lawn", and have poured white phosphorus over schools and hospitals

You answered your own question.  They can't have nukes because they would use them.f

No i didn't.  And you quoted me like i was asking why Israel couldn't have them. Apart from Israeli propaganda, what evidence suggests Iran would use nukes?  Israel goes on about the danger of Iran having them when Israel has used chemical weapons on schools and hospitals.

Also, the US have used nukes, why are they allowed them?

Because they invented them, and who the fuck is going to take them away?

Too subtle for Benji.

[benjimanbreeg]

they go into Gaza every couple of years to "mow the lawn", and have poured white phosphorus over schools and hospitals

You answered your own question.  They can't have nukes because they would use them.f

No i didn't.  And you quoted me like i was asking why Israel couldn't have them. Apart from Israeli propaganda, what evidence suggests Iran would use nukes?  Israel goes on about the danger of Iran having them when Israel has used chemical weapons on schools and hospitals.

Also, the US have used nukes, why are they allowed them?

Because they invented them, and who the fuck is going to take them away?

Themselves.  They along with Israel are the ones who put pressure on Iran, as Iran having nukes is a "threat".   Well a pair of countries that between them have used nukes, chemical weapons and are continuously involved in warfare are more of a threat than anyone else, so why don't they practice what they preach?  As i've said, everyone should have them or no one should. 

[Jack]

no one should.

That's the point of the treaty. The security council members will never be expected to disarm until all other countries enter the treaty, disarm, and have transparency of uranium enrichment programs. It may never actually happen, though treaty member with a history of concealing uranium enrichment programs while part of the treaty do make it a longer process. Iran can't have nuclear weapons because they said they wont.

[odeon]

they go into Gaza every couple of years to "mow the lawn", and have poured white phosphorus over schools and hospitals

You answered your own question.  They can't have nukes because they would use them.f

No i didn't.  And you quoted me like i was asking why Israel couldn't have them. Apart from Israeli propaganda, what evidence suggests Iran would use nukes?  Israel goes on about the danger of Iran having them when Israel has used chemical weapons on schools and hospitals.

Also, the US have used nukes, why are they allowed them?

Because they invented them, and who the fuck is going to take them away?

Themselves.  They along with Israel are the ones who put pressure on Iran, as Iran having nukes is a "threat".   Well a pair of countries that between them have used nukes, chemical weapons and are continuously involved in warfare are more of a threat than anyone else, so why don't they practice what they preach?  As i've said, everyone should have them or no one should. 

This is sort of sweet. Stupid, but sweet.

[MLA]

they go into Gaza every couple of years to "mow the lawn", and have poured white phosphorus over schools and hospitals

You answered your own question.  They can't have nukes because they would use them.f

No i didn't.  And you quoted me like i was asking why Israel couldn't have them. Apart from Israeli propaganda, what evidence suggests Iran would use nukes?  Israel goes on about the danger of Iran having them when Israel has used chemical weapons on schools and hospitals.

Also, the US have used nukes, why are they allowed them?

Because they invented them, and who the fuck is going to take them away?

Themselves.  They along with Israel are the ones who put pressure on Iran, as Iran having nukes is a "threat".   Well a pair of countries that between them have used nukes, chemical weapons and are continuously involved in warfare are more of a threat than anyone else, so why don't they practice what they preach?  As i've said, everyone should have them or no one should.

Well shit ... did you call them all up and tell them? 

[odeon]

I think he should.

[benjimanbreeg]

I find it amusing that you are assuming that i'm being naive about this and don't understand how things work.  I'm testing to see if others are consistent.  Moronic odeon thinking it's stupid for me to demand that the world does adhere to a basic principle "practice what you preach". 

I'm fully aware that America, the biggest terrorist state on earth has full control and doesn't have to abide by the same standards as it's non "allies".  Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan should have had nukes, as should Iran, then the Middle East could be protected from the US and Israel. 

[benjimanbreeg]

In reality, no countries who don't already have nukes are allowed to have them, but at the same time, those who do have been required to give them up since 1968. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

[benjimanbreeg]

And those already with them are breaking International Law by continuing to invest billions in developing and researching ways to perfect our nukes, so it's beyond hilarious that we go on about Iran. 

[Jack]

In reality, all countries are allowed to have nukes, all they must do is withdraw from the treaty or never join it in the first place, like Isreal and North Korea as examples. In reality, the treaty allows for arms sharing so there are countries who have nuclear arms which are simply housed in allied countries within the security council, which allows them to both have access to nuclear arms and still maintain their end of treaty agreements. Statements like, the US is in charge, does give an impression of lack of understanding of how things work. Security council members have equal voting and veto power within the UN. Wondering exactly which international law is being broken; that makes no sense. If it's laughable to go on about Iran, then stop going on about Iran. 

[benjimanbreeg]

No they are not.  Since 1996, all countries have been obliged to get rid of the ones they already have, as well as no new countries being able to get them, this was the compromise.  So with any country still spending money to develop and perfect them, they have been breaking International Law for almost 20 years.  The world gathers together to stop Iran possibly getting nukes, and is ok with the US having them, even though the US has used them, they've payed for Israel to use chemical weapons on schools and hospitals and have been supporting a brutal and illegal occupation for nearly 50 years.  In a sane world, the rest of the world would be going to great trouble to get the US to give up their nukes. 

I'm talking about any country going on about Iran developing nukes when countries who are endlessly at war already have hundreds of them. 

[Jack]

That's incorrect. A treaty isn't an international law; it's a treaty which Israel hasn't joined. Security council members are authorized nuclear states under the terms of the treaty and are in no way obligated to disarm at this point in time or at any previous point in time. The rest of the world would be going to great trouble to get any particular superpower to give up their nuclear weapons, because other countries without nuclear arms currently rely on their allies within the security council to defend them in the event they're faced with nuclear attack. One day it may be an actuality for world superpowers to be expected to disarm, and the last fifty years has shown enormous progress in that direction, maybe more progress than any other publicly known UN initiative. You're correct, in that ideally no one should have nuclear arms under the NPT, and haven't argued against that; it simply hasn't reached that level of it's potential. The question of why has been asked in the OP of this thread; and that why has been answered to my understanding. According to Iran, Iran has no intention of developing nuclear arms, so this discussion is moot anyway. If you already know why the point of asking why is also moot.