Iran should be allowed to develop a nuclear arsenal
Debate Rounds (3)
- Iran is a Shia Theocracy and by allowing them this you grant them more power and influence (sharia law will spread), alarm Sunnis' (who'd make a prime target), Endanger both Israel and more so Iraq (war could start up again).
- The ayatollah is tyrant who can't be trusted.
- Rouhanni can't be trusted either even though he's supposedly liberal: since not only is he subordinate to the conservative ayatollah; he also is a holocaust denier, and the mastermind behind the deplorable response to the student protests of 1999!
- Iran sponsor and support many insidious regimes and appealing terrorist groups - this will only catalyse that.
- Nuclear weapons are obsolete deterrents, necessary in the Cold War - we shouldn't be encouraging and endorsing furthering of the Manhattan project.
- They're run by dogma not rationale doctrine.
- A global mantra forms which Will allow other countries to enrich their own WMD arsenal. (bad economically, socially, environmental and philanthropically)
"We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita... "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
"There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors."
It is Israel's nuclear arsenal, not Iran's desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis. Power, after all, begs to be balanced.
Iran is a proud civilization thousands of years old; it's extremely extremely doubtful and hateful propaganda to think they would blow up the Middle East
First off I'd like to apologise for two spelling faults of my own those being appealing instead of appalling and mantra instead of maxim (however the latter still makes syntactic sense somewhat) now swiftly moving on.
To begin with I actually assent with your point on Israel's weaponry monopoly fueling unrest (iron dome). However I feel that by granting Iran the same mistaken privileges we only duplicate the problem and further the unrest. I support the exact same restrictions been put on Israel to! The proposal wasn't about the Israeli arsenal, and to focus in on it so much signifies a folderol argument frivosuly shifting the debate's burden.
Furthermore I'd dissent that Iran is a "proud civilisation" I'd support the claim that Persia was one but I'd disagree with Iran being called such as it is a society of autocracy (first the shah now the ayatollah). Arguably North Korea, Zimbabwe, Pakistan Belarus and Uzbekistan are also proud civilisations but would you feel comfortable with the prospect of any of those regimes building up a nuclear stockpile - I think not!
I have no problem with Iran's nuclear enrichment program as it. Creates energy and jobs; I merely support them bringing it down to the 5% level of uranium enrichment that was specified, as that makes it clear that Khameni is sticking to his fatwa, and not caving in to the climatic anxiety of the Iran-Iraq war where Khomeini began creating these weapons to challenge saddam's poisonous gas,and that the program is only being utilised for positive , productive scientific means.
Whether I think Iran are going to use the weapons or not is irrelevant;there is a restrictive cap for a reason, and by refusing it iran only arouses more suspicion an counterpoises it's legitimacy. They're an Islamic Republic and wish to spread Islamic revolution around the globe. For brevity's sake I won't bore you with tehran's claims, quotes, flag emblems spotted by journalists in the nation and criticism of volatile/vitriolic and straining foreign relations, alliances and rivalries (w hitch arguably all countries have 'only referring to last'). Tis a dangerous fallacy to claim that any nation has a sovereign right to nuclear armament!
Please, no need to apologize for these minor errors; its more important to get a well rounded idea backed with facts, rather than using fancy words sounding smart. (I dont call your ideas "folderol" which means non sense, i hope you respect me in the same way)
-Firstly, I am glad we have common ground on Israel; since it goes hand in hand with Iran. Here is why; the only reason we are even talking about Iran's nucluear issue is because of its close proximity to Israel (and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia). Does it not occur to that the most powerful lobby in Washington is that of a foreign nation?(Israel). Then tell me why are we concerning ourselves with a stable country like Iran gaining Nuclear capability. They will never reach our soil. and honestly you don't understand how international politics work; all nations of the earth's leaders have a mutual incentive to maintain power and stability which brings them money. ISRAEL IS THE ISSUE NOT USA.
Persia and Iran are one in the same! what is your argument. Let me name you a few inventions that the Iranian empire created, Persia was a name given by great britian. The first Taxation system (under the Achemenid empire).
- Alcohol (medicine). the invention of brick. They led the world in science and astronomy when Europe was stuck in the dark ages. North Korea Zimbabwe Pakistan Belarus Uzbekistan cannot say the same! Likewise, these countries you named are extremely laughable. Belarus and Uzbekistan were once part of the Soviet Union, they are largely Russian origon. North Korea has no great history; it has a korean history which is different from the political creation you see today. Pakistan, don't even get me started. PAKISTAN HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS DONT YOU KNOW THAT? THE REGION AND WORLD IS JUST FINE IF NOT SAFER FOR THAT.
They are an islamic republic that DOES NOT wish to spread islamic revolution around the globe. Please give me evidence of them trying to spread islam outside of the middle east. Do you not know the history; they democratically elected Mossadegh in the 1950's and we replaced them with a dictator who abused the people and sold his countries natural resources to the west. And for "brevity's sake" i wont bore you with the U.S.'s claims, quotes(evil empire); please.
- Sorry for my use of the term 'folderol' I meant it only as a light antagonism, and not a subversion of your argument's credibility. (being English the House of Commons style of debating is my natural projection which I understand gets misinterpreted by many which is a fault of my own)
- I will keep my terminology plain if that is how my opponent wishes the argument to go (whoever said eloquence was necessary in debate)
I'd like to start my riposte with a proposition to my opponent: Does he believe that a country that treats homosexuality as a capital offence, can truly be trusted to exercise sound judgement over a unregulated nuclear stockpile? Would he really trust the council of guardians and the revolutionary Guard (who are becoming more analogous to the SA by the day)? I'd like to clear up my Pakistan point which you accentuated falsely (by a failure of my own); you see I meant countries not part of the Non-proliferation Treaty, such seemed obvious to me however it's clear I should have been more explicit for your sake (why else would I have included the glaring example of North Korea in my mention?). Would you really describe the failed self- ostracised state of Pakistan as "Just fine" or "Safe"- there is a reason it's considered a hub of terrorism, inequality and injustice. If your example of a nation positively effected by owning a plethora of nuclear warheads is "Pakistan", this debate's going to be a lot easier than I expected. Secondly: Are you really calling Iran "stable"? For someone who's quick to question my understanding of international politics, you appear to be severely detached from Iranian reality; to preoccupied by the past and contempt for Israel by the looks of it (do you recall the 2009/2010 riots; did that look like the countenance of societal equilibrium?). May I recommend a visit to this group page for a dose of erudition https://www.facebook.com.... For If by stability you mean oppression you'd be empirically correct but fundamentally wrong in your conception of the two concepts and there dichotomy in relashontship and ethos. In our epoch do you really want more weapons designed soley for mass annihilation when contemporary conflicts are now nuanced with the conflicts being against rouge regimes, religious and ethnic sects and terrorist cells. Stop focusing so much on the past this is about the future; do you really want to build that future off a climate of dividing Cold War esque fear.
So your logic for whether or not a country should be aloud to possess nuclear arms revolves around the amount of inventions they've created and the progress they made centuries ago (I fail to see how one of rational mind could use Ibn Sa as a case for giving ) :don't you think that's a tad ridiculous and irrelevant? - zeitgeist's are malleable chap. Belarus submitted to the ntp (Russia annoyed me in that deal). Follow the ntp rules that is the diplomatic way, and that will encourage members to move their focus towards Israel and scrutinise their nuclear policy instead ( I have no problem with Iran pursuing a conventional program as their oil reserves are dwindling and they need an economic boost). Evidence has shown connection between Pakistan and Iran engaging each other in black market dealing on nuclear weapons. I agknowledge your point about Israeli lobbyist power (in Britain most political parties have an inner 'friends of Israel' group); however as is evident by the behaviours of both my foreign secretary "William Hauge" and your foreign secretary "John Kerry" we are not afraid to stand up against them. You failed to understand my symbolic distinction between Iran and Persia; you see it wasn't until dear old Reza Shah started his dynasty that in 1935 he demanded that Persia be referred to by its ancient name of Iran; thus the imperial state of Iran ossified! all those achievements you lauded took place in times of Persian empire. And yet you had the audacity to condensed me with your tone over such basic history as the 1953 coup d'eta on mossadegh orchastarted by MI5 and the CIA in retaliation to oil nationalisation. My form of Iran vs Persia is a subjective/personal outlook. Do you think any authoritarian junta should be internationally endorsed when they should be prohibited to develop weapons exceeding limit oration set out in doctrine, does that not strike you as unfair to illustrate one gripe.
"Please give me evidence of them trying to spread Islam outside of the middle east": Will a little known group called 'Hezbollah' suffice!
In closing I have noticed that this debate has been poisned with vitriol perpetrated by me an my opponent in childish ways to make ourselves look more discernibly machismoistic: to rectify any lurking bad blood may I commend my opponent for his part in a sound debate and wish him luck in the vote (I have empathised with his stance since I once held it)
Will continue in comments if deemed necesar
First of all I want to ask you to not change the topic please. It is a desperate tactic by my opponent to bring in other issues rather than sticking to the issue of nuclear weapons. The quick answer to that question is yes and here is why. My opponent has never stated once how Iran having nuclear weapons would be dangerous to the U.S., rather he keeps his argument vague,. they are "unstable'(they are not unstable, they have a strong central government and there has never been terrorist attacks in the country. They have a well developed army, and a strong national culture, its almost impossible that nuclear weapon could get in the hands of terrorists.)
So I am supposed to read your mind when you mention random countries? That makes no sense and the good people reading this will see that. Pakistan have nuclear weapons which has been fine up to now and will remain so; based on mutual destruction. I would rather the whole world didn't have nuclear weapons but that's just not the case; it isn't fair that the U.S., thousands of miles away can tell Pakistan or Iran for that matter what they can't or can not do. Of course, within reason; if it was a terrorist group trying to get it that was at war with the U.S. then we have every right to defend ourselves and do pre emptive strikes. Yet so far, every time another country has managed to shoulder its way into the nuclear club, the other members have always changed tack and decided to live with it. In fact, by reducing imbalances in military power, new nuclear states generally produce more regional and international stability, not less.
INEQUALITY AND JUSTICE? Again, you are trying to bring the specific issue of nuclear weapons and stability together with social and political justice. Tell me this, who are we to judge when we arrest our own whistle blowers who expose horrible evil government corruption(private Bradley revealed the U.S. helicopter mowing down civilians in Iraq, with NO punishment) We lock up Snowden for revealing government horrendous government abuse, so please lets stick to the issue.
("do you recall the 2009/2010 riots; did that look like the countenance of societal equilibrium?") Do you consider occupy movement protests all across the U.S. the countenance of societal equilibrium? Please don't accuse me of being anti-Israeli with no proof; you're only goal of this comment is what exactly? If Iran goes nuclear, Israel and Iran will deter each other, as nuclear powers always have. There has never been a full-scale war between two nuclear-armed states.
You see, you are taking a small section of my overall argument and using it for your own propaganda. Of course I don't think a country should or shouldn't have nuclear weapons based on past inventions(please. since you are so smart, stop bringing the conversation down to pre school level). I was merely trying to make a point that the Iranian people have existed for thousands of years; they are not about to all of a sudden blow up the middle east or the world. Even if Iran has a weapon of mass destruction (which we know they do not), and even if Iran has long range ICBMs to reach across the Atlantic with (which we know they do not), Iran would still not be a threat to the US because any attack with a weapon of mass destruction would be national suicide. The 1953 coup d'eta is extremely relevant today and there is a reason why I brought it up. The 1951-53 embargo and its implications are particularly relevant today, as Washington and the world contemplate next steps in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions and how best to leverage the far-reaching sanctions regime erected to thwart them. The current sanctions have eroded Iran"s oil exports, trade and integration in the international financial system. As international negotiators prepare for a return to talks on the Iranian nuclear program, delving into the history of the 1951-53 embargo would be instructive for all sides.
HEZBOLLAH is in the middle east, it seems you don't read and think about the statement sometimes, you're too eager to attack my points. Hezbollah operates largely in the middle east and struggles specifically against Israel and that's their business. They are not in the business of world domination, where you get your information I don't know; they have a legitimate democratically elected government in Palestine.
I do appreciate the respect that my opponent has given me and i respect him and his opinions as well. It is important in arguments to understand that neither one of us is 100% right and we can even learn something from each other
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.