Iran has enough uranium for bomb; UN (1 Viewer)

[moll.]

So you don't think there's any use in America having WMDs?

Do you think these should be forcibly removed from potential dangers (such as Iran)?

No. There's never been any point in WMD's. The only valid reasons are either for apocalyptic or agressive war purposes, neither of which are worthwhile or moral.
Anyone who says that WMD's are necessary for defence is inhumane, because once 10 million of your citizens are dead, what possible purpose or postive result could be gained by slaughtering 10 million of their citizens in return? "An eye for an eye" indeed.
Anyone who says they're necessary for deterrance obviously has never heard of the Great Wall of China or it's backstory, nor do they recognise that there has to be an initial starting point where a nation thus got them for no particular reason.

Forcibly removing them would be idiotic. "We want to do everything we can to avoid violence or death, therefore we will use violence and death in order to do so, all the while making you very nervous and trigger-happy." Great plan.
Aggressive and compromise-based diplomacy is the only realistic way out of this. Trade with Iran, a favour for a favour. We use a neutral third-party to offer the removal the economic blockade and helping them set up a peaceful nuclear power program, in return for them giving the UN unfiltered access to the site and giving up on any weapons programs. If they refuse, we can always place more economic sanctions on them, distribute propoganda in Iran to undermine the administration, find a point where we do agree (eg Afghanistan) and work on that first or, better still, gain the moral high-ground and in return get the Russians, Chinese, Syrians, Lebanese and Saudis on our side, which will enable us to apply more pressure in the next round of negotiations.

 

[bell531]

No. There's never been any point in WMD's. The only valid reasons are either for apocalyptic or agressive war purposes, neither of which are worthwhile or moral.
Anyone who says that WMD's are necessary for defence is inhumane, because once 10 million of your citizens are dead, what possible purpose or postive result could be gained by slaughtering 10 million of their citizens in return? "An eye for an eye" indeed.
Anyone who says they're necessary for deterrance obviously has never heard of the Great Wall of China or it's backstory, nor do they recognise that there has to be an initial starting point where a nation thus got them for no particular reason.

Forcibly removing them would be idiotic. "We want to do everything we can to avoid violence or death, therefore we will use violence and death in order to do so, all the while making you very nervous and trigger-happy." Great plan.

No; "We want to avoid total destruction, therefore we will act decisively so as to save the greater majority".

Aggressive and compromise-based diplomacy is the only realistic way out of this. Trade with Iran, a favour for a favour. We use a neutral third-party to offer the removal the economic blockade and helping them set up a peaceful nuclear power program, in return for them giving the UN unfiltered access to the site and giving up on any weapons programs. If they refuse, we can always place more economic sanctions on them, distribute propoganda in Iran to undermine the administration, find a point where we do agree (eg Afghanistan) and work on that first or, better still, gain the moral high-ground and in return get the Russians, Chinese, Syrians, Lebanese and Saudis on our side, which will enable us to apply more pressure in the next round of negotiations.

Wow, sounds like you just solved the problem. I would pos rep you for this but because of our last argument, I can't.