Give Iran Their Very Own Nuclear Bombs
Plenty of countries, the UK and US included, have massive stocks of nuclear weapons.
OK, we’re not supposed to be building new ones and there’s a non-proliferation agreement in place. But – she has said it before and she’ll say it again – The Nurse still thinks it’s naive to expect Iran to abstain from nuclear weapons altogether.
It’d be a different story if very few or no other countries had nuclear bombs. Or if everyone was busy de-commissioning and dismantling them hell for leather, openly for all to see.
But that isn’t happening. Countries with nuclear weapons are hanging on to them, reluctant to let go.
The Nurse is neither surprised nor outraged that Iran seems to be moving towards making a few nuclear bombs of its own. She would too if she were them. Why? To keep things fair and create balance; some bargaining power and security while the rest of the world fannies around getting its non-nuclear act together… which could take decades.
So, what to do? The Nurse proposes the UK, US and all the other nuclear powers each donate a nice, shiny bomb to Iran. Then we’ll all be on a level playing field and nuclear disarmament negotiations can start in earnest.
Until then Iran will doubtless remain justifiably pissed off and pressurised. Feeling pissed off and pressurised makes The Nurse feel provocative. She’s extremely dangerous when cornered. The same probably goes for Iran.
Andy from CustomWristbands wrote,
Do you mean Iran? Iran is persuing nukes at breakneck speed.
Link | February 8th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Samantha wrote,
It’s funny because as i read your post, i kept on asking myself: Who is Nurse? Like duh! I feel so ashamed of myself. Haha! I keep on repeating the question while i was reading and the poof! I got it! Hooray! I couldn’t agree with you more in there.. (wink)
Link | February 11th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
Audrey from Clothes Iron wrote,
Haha! I like your proposal – donating bombs to Iraq! I think the chances of me striking the lottery is way better than that happening. Anyway, those bombs do have its bargaining value, e.g. North Korea. With each country wanting to protect her own interest, who wouldn’t want a stockpile of those bombs, right?
Link | February 17th, 2010 at 6:21 am
The Nurse wrote,
Of course The Nurse meant Iran… it’s so dark in this nasty cell she can’t see straight, and she was also a little bit off her face when she wrote this post…
Link | February 24th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Jim from Shrink films wrote,
Your idea is nice but it wont ever see the light of day. It’s about dominion and control over the world. The real ones in charge are power hungry twats, so don’t see anything changing anytime soon. You’d have to do a bit of searching to find out who are the real ones in charge, though. Don’t want to spoil your fun
Link | March 14th, 2010 at 8:07 am
Chris from Traffic Ultimatum wrote,
Assuming that Iran gets these nukes ! Do you think they will sit idle or they will be the first to attack Israel? I don’t think the countries that have nuclear bombs can be convinced to let go of them. It will be a political suicide for the leaders.
Link | March 17th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Joseph B from maine wedding wrote,
Iran already has been acquiring nuclear power capabilities and nuclear technology since quite a few years. The nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program. It would not be wise to actually provide a nation with nuclear bombs as long as the nation has extreme neighboring nations.
Link | April 13th, 2010 at 5:23 am
Herbert L. Shallcross III wrote,
Yes, I’m an American, and we did use the atom bomb 65 years ago. Of course, that was probably the best thing to do, and ultimately saved Japan as a nation. On the other hand, we have refrained from using nuclear weapons for longer than any other nation, and our immense investment in mutually assured destruction has prevented any other nation from attempting to use them.
Newer, possibly less responsible members of the nuclear club give me the yips. For example, what if fundamentalists got control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons?
A nuclear armed Iran, with it’s naked hatred of Israel is less than ten minutes as the missile flies from obliterating the “Zionist Entity”. Knowing that, Israel would be put in a “use ‘em or lose ‘em” situation. You may joke about nukes for Iran, but it would be extremely destabilizing, and mitigate for a first strike.
Link | May 4th, 2010 at 4:26 am
Herbert L. Shallcross III wrote,
I suppose the nurse’s comments are facetious, but they partake of the fallacy of moral equivalency. There are nations, like the U.K., France, the U.S. or even Russia who have nuclear weapons that one can trust only to use in the most extreme exigency. A nation that has repeatedly threatened genocide on it’s neighbors wouldn’t be one I could put much trust in. More significantly, Israel, the aforementioned neighbor, who almost certainly has had nuclear weapons for about thirty years, and generally can be trusted with them, has no reason to trust Iran. Israel would be put under threat of instant annihilation if Iran develops nukes. That threat is exactly the extreme exigency I was talking about. Perhaps a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel could be limited to the region, but even so, tens of millions of people in the major population centers of the two nations would die. Hardly a topic for glib humor.
Link | May 20th, 2010 at 5:03 am