BF2S Forums "Stable" nations getting nukes?

Teckademics wrote:

japan with nukes? HELL NO.. once they get them the power will go to there heads and it will be pearl harbor all over again. they will all say WE NUKA BIG AMERICAN PENIS and the shit hits the fan.

umm.. Japans friend of USA now. Things have changed from what it was like 60 years ago
and we wouldnt have bombed pearl harbour if USA didnt force us to retreat from China and send us Hull note.
Japan wouldnt there to nuke USA since they got like 3000 nukes. Therefore we need least one nukes for protection.

and sorry for bad english. I only been learning english for like couple years

anzus wrote:

PS if us aussies had nukes I think the Middle east wouldnt exsist now and little Priminister Johnny Howard would be saying "I didnt know we had any nukes, what nuke?, wheres Iraq?, we couldnt give wheat kickbacks to a country that doesnt exsist?"

So much for our meat + grain trades

well, I believe from a technological POV, a lot of countries would be able to develop nuclear weapons, but most have decided not to do so. Those who possess nukes or strive to do so are either:

1.) under the impression that they are surrounded by adversary and need the nukes for protection ( Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Iran ).
2.) former or actual superpowers who have nukes left from the cold war or who keep the nukes to support their claim to be a superpower after all ( russia, china, France, UK, USA )

I think we all agree that the world would be better off without nukes, but the technology is out there and can't be un-invented, if you will. Nukes are here to stay, and we need to deal with them. That's why we have a couple of non-proliferation treaties and the IAEO to watch over nuclear acticvity.

On the other hand, from a legal POV, Iran ( for example ) is no different from the US. Both are sovereign nations and members of the UN. And as long as Iran doesn't start a war or attacks other UN members, there is no legal grounds to throw out Iran's claims for developing nuclear weapons. If other nations do have them for protection, why shouldn't Iran ?

The question is, what makes a stable neation ? And who decides what a stable nation is ? The UN ? The "West" ? The US ?

Yes. Why kill so many ppl for no reason?!

Pubic wrote:

^ Lets say for the sake of argument that a stable nation is one which would acquire nuclear weapons purely as a deterrant, and has the funding/ability to maintain them and keep them secure.

well, from that POV, Iran would certainly qualify. Moreover, any deterrant is useless if you can't make people believe you are willing to use it.

Israel and the US will not allow Iran to develop nuclear enrichment capabilities, it's as easy as that.

Moreover, if they believe they are going to face Iran militarily eventually anyway, they'd be better off making sure Iran doesn't get nukes now. It's a strategic decision.