Amid renewed nuclear talks between the United States and Iran, the US has assembled its largest naval force in the Middle East since Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Thanks. Very clear writing. For me, the better question is: why should other countries have nuclear weapons? If it's not good for Iran why is it OK for North Korea? India? Pakistan? Israel? China? Russia? The European countries? Why is it OK for the US? Do we have some kind of moral high ground - we don't anymore if we ever did? Only the powerful are allowed nuclear weapons. Why do we have a say what happens inside sovereign borders? We can exert pressure. But it's not ultimately our decision.
I agree. It is one nation's point of view against another. We feel Iran is bad (which we should, given their human rights violations and support of terrorist groups), but they don't necessarily feel that way, and some other nations might not. So who gets to make the call on which nation gets to have nukes and which don't? For now, that is whoever is the most powerful and willing to use that power.
There were at least treaties and agreements between the US and Russia to limit the number of nuclear weapons, but the last one of those expired this month, with nothing to replace it, ending 50 years of nuclear cooperation.
There were efforts to create a new treaty that included China, but China didn't want it. That makes sense as China has a small growing arsenal compared to Russia and the US, which control 90% of the world's supply of nuclear weapons.
Given how much political power owning a nuclear weapon grants, it only makes sense for nations like Iran to want to either have one or have the capability to quickly build one.
I don't see anything changing with nuclear weapons until a nation succeeds in producing a solid countermeasure, an idea that seems further away with how advanced hypersonic missiles are becoming.
We at least have some security from the fact that no one wants to use a nuke because so many other nations have them, and the consequences for deploying one would be disastrous.
Thanks. Very clear writing. For me, the better question is: why should other countries have nuclear weapons? If it's not good for Iran why is it OK for North Korea? India? Pakistan? Israel? China? Russia? The European countries? Why is it OK for the US? Do we have some kind of moral high ground - we don't anymore if we ever did? Only the powerful are allowed nuclear weapons. Why do we have a say what happens inside sovereign borders? We can exert pressure. But it's not ultimately our decision.
I agree. It is one nation's point of view against another. We feel Iran is bad (which we should, given their human rights violations and support of terrorist groups), but they don't necessarily feel that way, and some other nations might not. So who gets to make the call on which nation gets to have nukes and which don't? For now, that is whoever is the most powerful and willing to use that power.
There were at least treaties and agreements between the US and Russia to limit the number of nuclear weapons, but the last one of those expired this month, with nothing to replace it, ending 50 years of nuclear cooperation.
There were efforts to create a new treaty that included China, but China didn't want it. That makes sense as China has a small growing arsenal compared to Russia and the US, which control 90% of the world's supply of nuclear weapons.
Given how much political power owning a nuclear weapon grants, it only makes sense for nations like Iran to want to either have one or have the capability to quickly build one.
I don't see anything changing with nuclear weapons until a nation succeeds in producing a solid countermeasure, an idea that seems further away with how advanced hypersonic missiles are becoming.
We at least have some security from the fact that no one wants to use a nuke because so many other nations have them, and the consequences for deploying one would be disastrous.