Why is an Iranian nuclear bomb supposed to be more dangerous than an American, Israeli or French?

ronscott1951

Bombs are the same, like kids being born. It all depends on who is in control of them. Ron Couch, Riverside, California

Mr. Thumbs Up

All though this is a great question, I'm still gonna call you a communist. Giving Iran nukes is like asking Andrea Yates to babysit your kids. Sure it might be o.k., but would you feel good about it?

Crossroads Keeper

They're not. The propoganda says it is because we are at war with Iranians and this is the only real way Bush can justify it. However; a bomb is a bomb and realistically-- we are the only 1s who have eer dropped a nuke.

Autogestion

Because their nuclear bomb could kill Americans and their allies. American life is more important than any others, didn't you know that? When the news in the U.S. reports of some world disaster, the American death/injury toll is always more important than the rest of the facts. It's like we're imperialists or something! Weird!

shoby_shoby2003

I think it's important to remember that the first bomb(s) Iran would have is likely only to be a fission (atomic) bomb, not a boosted fission or fusion (hydrogen) bomb.

However, it is the mentality of the people who control Iran that is more dangerous than the other nuclear nations.

Only USA, Britain, France, Russia, and China have thermonuclear (hydrogen) bombs. Israel has boosted fission bombs. India and Pakistan have fission (atomic) bombs.

Iran does not have the technology, nor anywhere near enough HEU to completely destroy Israel. They are far more likely to use a bomb similar to the one used by USA in Hiroshima which, compared to a thermonuclear bomb, is pretty feeble.

However, it is common knowledge that by casing the bomb in certain metals (for example, gold) it can greatly intensify the neutron radiation, which would probably end up killing far more people than the flash or the blast wave.

Also, Iran does not have the tactical knowledge of atomic warfare. It is unlikely that they will have the technology or knowledge to explode a bomb in such a way to make a precursor shock wave (which would obliterate nearly everything in its path).

In fact, in reality, they are far more likely to blow themselves up than anyone else.

ROBERT

More worried about korea doing it they will use them

Zelda Hunter

Iran has the right to develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy under the NPT (the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty which is a flawed treaty). According to this treaty only the US, UK, France, China and Russia (as successor to the Soviet Union) have the right to officially produce nuclear weapons. Many more countries have the capability to do so and some actually have nuclear bombs.
There is no "right" or "less dangerous" nuclear weapon. They are all dangerous and horrible. Even Robert McNamara admitted that at most the nuclear "haves" like the US would need only 10 nuclear bombs as deterrence.
Despite the propaganda flowing out there, I don't see Iran as one of the "crazies". I would be much more concerned about North Korea.
No bomb is a good bomb. No nuke is a good nuke. We must all work towards abolishing them all.

because Americans need oil, since France and Israel don't have their own oil resources - Americans decided that Iranian nuclear bomb is the most dangerous, all these wars are because of oil

The answer is rather simple, Iran is America's enemy. Israel, UK, France, et. al. are not. America feels its enemy having a nuclear bomb is a threat.

Also as a signing member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that at the time did not have a nuclear weapon, Iran is not allowed to have nuclear weapons, it would be a violation of international law.

This all being said, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that Iran is building a nuclear weapon or nuclear-grade uranium enrichment. There are different grades of uranium, you need a higher grade of it to use in a nuclear bomb. Because of how high grade it is, it puts off an extraordinarily large amount of radiation. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to develop a nuclear bomb in secret. If Iran is or will be building a nuclear weapon, it will not be a secret.

This is something the Western media doesn't report, because it doesn't sell many papers.

I don't think it's the fact that it's more dangerous...Nuclear bombs are all dangerous, it's just who's behind the threat...and how well the rest of the world can trust them.

notgnal

Because nobody in the west understands or trusts or thinks like the arabs...so we are unsure what these people might do with the bomb..

Mistress Mychel

that is not the issue the issue is we are the rule makers we have the biggest nuclear arsenal and no one else can and that is that and we also have the most military bases and the biggest most powerful navy and military that outnumbers the combined military forces of the world, might is right so when we say jump the international community better jump while asking how high or find themselves on the waiting list to be destroyed with iran, korea and mr chavez from velenzuela

mcbrian2000

iran will use the bomb, that is why.

thetravelinggardener

A nuke in the hands of a people whose religion calls for them to kill all unbelivers is a terrorist weapon.

This calls for a pre-emptive strike.

Nuke 'em till they glow in the dark.

Of course it's not, but life is precious to Americans, Israelis and French people whereas Islamic nations don't care about that and are willing to die for their 'cause' as we have seen on many occasions. It would therefore be very dangerous for them to possess such a weapon as they would not hesitate to use it to wipe Israel off the map - as they have already called for - and then, no doubt, to attack the USA.

PETER F

Because the belief in the west is that the Iranians are much more likely to use it. In miltiary confilcts the US does everything it can to prevent their troops for being killed. France tires not to get involved at all and even Israel does it's best to get it's captured troops back. Even most western based terrorist organisations do not conciously kill themselves in the process of attacking the enemy. However isalmic terrorists do send people who's aim is to kill themselves as well as the enemy. This willingness to die is what concerns people about Islamic states having the bomb. Mutually assured destruction is what prevented a war between the Soviet union and the US. If your enemy is not as scared of dying as you are then they could be consider to be a greater threat. Also Iran has publicly statted that it would like to see the destruction of Israel. Give them a Nuclear weapon and they might just try to realise that wish.

Diaboyos

Countries that aren't afraid of nuclear retaliation should not be allowed to possess nuclear power.

jqdsilva

because it will be aimed at the infidels. dduuuhhh!!!

Because Colored people now have a bomb LOL (other then East Asians)... oh and it probebly has something to do with the regions resources like "OIL"

White people only like for white rich people to have bombs, they feel they are more responsible with them...

YEAH right!

:-p

I say all the major powers of the world (or everyone for that matter LOL) should disarm themselves of anything having to do with nuclear stuff

This mean the USA should give up there's too, no exceptions!!!

Hmmm, my Q would be...
"Why can we take all the nuke stuff and send it on a rocket to the sun? I mean will it really effect the sun that much? Don't it already have explosions from the same stuff going on? Can't we just permanetly get rid of it by flying it all into the sun LOL which is OFF this planet?"
Not sure how to phrase all of that LOL...
But really, can't we just do that? And the vow not to make NO more?

Cya!
::: Peace :::

Xenadil

They are more or less the same. It's just the press that's highlighting how dangerous that Iranian bomb is.

Huevos Rancheros

While American and Israeli nukes sit on top of missiles, the Irianians would prefer to make theirs fit in the trunk of a car. America would probably warn of impending nuke attack, Iran would like it if you didn't know what hit you.

rumpel

it isnt more dangerous. we should be more worried about the other countries with nuclear weapons like the US for example

Murmur

A nuke is a nuke, dangerous in any hand, and in my opinion, the american hand most ... they're the only ones who used it till now, right?

I also think that if israel is allowed a certain level of nuclear technology, all the surrounding countries should be allowed the same level, or restrict nuclear development in the region equally.
I also think that it's perfectly okay that a country becomes a super power and regulates the political and military stuff between countries, because with power comes responsibility, but this super power must work for the good of everybody not for its own only as the US is now.

Bottom line:
Iran should have their own nuclear facilities whether they're gonna make a bomb or not, as long as other countries have nukes.

0_0

hahaha exactly!!! That's what i thought also...its like you stole my idea..I'm suing....Where is my lawyer?

in vino veritas

Well, Iran did say it wanted to wipe Israel of the face of the earth. So far America or France hasn't said it wished to totally destroy a country. Iran also had riots when the Pope read from that medieval manuscript. A country that can catch fire that quickly defiantly doesn't need to have nuclear weapons.

iainb31

Any nuclear bomb is dangerous, it's who's handling it that makes the big difference. The Iranians, like a lot of middle east countries, are a bit unstable at the moment with the whole Iraq thing going on. My personal view is I'd find it a whole lot more comfortable without them having it but then I'd ban nuclear bombs full stop. Besides, I think the biggest concern at the moment is North Korea and I can honestly see war breaking out there, which begs the question what will happen with Iraq? Will we just pull out and leave them to it to go off and fight another war?

cymry3jones

Now there's a good question. Is it a simply a matter of 'do as I say, not as I do'?.
Iran is surrounded by other countries. Dropping a nuclear bomb on Israel isn't an option. The wind could change.
The USA, on the other hand, is relatively remote from the fall-out danger.
Personally, I'm far more worried about the USA having the 'bomb' than I am of Iran continuing with their nuclear power technology. Historically speaking, which country is more likely to go off at half-a male hen?

Charles B

The risk of religious fanaticals getting ahold of a nuclear device, esp. fanticals with a history of attacking US targets, should make all americans worried. Spain, UK, and other areas targeted should also be worried.

college_republicans_club

Because Americans, Israelis and the French dont generally call for the complete anihillation of other nations. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, publically stated that Israel should be destroyed.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while addressing close to four thousand students at a Tehran conference entitled "The World Without Zionism," called for the unequivocal destruction of Israel. In no ambiguous terms, Ahmadinejad stated that Israel "must be wiped off the map."

philipscottbrooks

Its like a car it doesn't matter who made it, it's who is driving it you need to worry about.

Personally I am not happy aboout the amount if wreckless drivers on the road..........theres one to think about

suriyan

no one gives reward for killing humans using the inventions like this but using inventions in correct way gives real awards to a person. suppose the bombs are used in wars means marrie currie wont invented radio activity.

suriyan

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: