4 ms·

Would you really trust a dictatorship with nuclear power?

• postingpals 6y ago
  President Hassan Rouhani was elected democratically.
  • personomas 6y ago
    Iranians were and are afraid to vote. Not too long ago, in Iran, there were scores of mass protests against their own government, who were then oppressed, subdued, and killed for protesting. Lots and lots of censorship including in the media, internet, and free speech. Sounds like a dictatorship to me.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• jasonvorhe 6y ago
  What about Russia? Or alternatively, what makes democratic nations the better shepards of nuclear weapons? It's not like they're asking their voters before they'd start a nuke. I think the cold war showed us how easy it is to succumb to fear and how close we can get to nuclear annihilation.
  • personomas 6y ago
    Russia is more trustworthy than Iran. Nonetheless, nobody wants Russia to have nuclear weapons, but nobody can do anything about it. They've already have them for a long time. I don't trust anyone with nuclear weapons. It would be lovely if nobody had them. That's realistically not possible right now. As long as countries continue to amass them, there's a need for "more good" countries to keep them. These are almost always democracies. Democracy is generally speaking just safer and better than dictatorship. I'm just going to stop there, and not get into a debate right now of democracy vs dictatorship. Would you rather have the good man with the power, or the bad man? That's the ultimate question simplified. You want the good man with the power, then it's a question of who is good, which would lead to huge endless debate right now.
    • Yetanfou 6y ago
      If nobody had nuclear weapons the second world war would have lasted longer and the invasion of the Japanese mainland would have cost far more lives (on all sides) than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did. The cold war would probably have gone hot, Europe would have been a battlefield and might have ended up under Soviet rule. As to how the conflict between China and the Soviet Union would have gone I can only speculate, that there would have been one is rather likely. Nuclear weapons have kept the large powers from direct confrontation since the 50's, their existence has saved more lives than their use has cost. As long as they are not acquired by (in our eyes) irrational or suicidal actors they can be used for this purpose. As to whether a nuclear armed Iran would use them as a deterrent or otherwise - which includes providing nuclear weapons to third parties for use against common enemies - I can only guess. My guess is that a weakened theocracy - which is what Iran is - is an irrational actor and with that not to be trusted to "do the right thing".
      • stunt 6y ago
        > If nobody had nuclear weapons the second world war would have lasted longer and the invasion of the Japanese mainland would have cost far more lives Yes, that's what we were told. But, was it really necessary to bomb Japanese cities to show them force?
        • Yetanfou 6y ago
          Nagasaki was not necessary, Hiroshima ended the war. The war would have ended without it as well but the number of lives lost during an invasion would have been far greater than those lost during the bombings.
• stunt 6y ago
  No! and that's why we had nuclear deal with Iran to monitor their nuclear program. No country has the same amount of international monitoring on their nuclear program that Iran has by IAEA. They signed more nuclear treaties than many other countries with nuclear power. Putting sanctions and and assassinating their generals and scientist will only give them more reason to distance themselves from west. You can't use force and unlawful actions and expect your opponent to do nothing or trust you after that. We need sensible solutions.