Well it’s not really ":ok": for any country to have nuclear weapons: weapons of mass destruction should not really be in any country’s hands, and the fact that those countries have them is scary in itself. The rationale for keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of a country like Iran is due to the fact that many people believe that Iran could overthrow the delicate balance of power in the Middle East. They see a country which in their eyes has to potential to do great harm with these weapons: which may give them to suspect groups, and cause mass destruction within the world. They believe that countries like the U.S., Russia, France, Great Britain, etc. are more responsible than Iran with such weapons: that they understand the risks more due to the fact that they are believed to be more ":civilized":, and really the risks are too high for any country to handle. It can boil down to the fact of haves and have-nots: they have nuclear weapons, and because of this they believe that they can dictate who else can have possession of them.
In all honesty, there really is no reason for any country to possess weapons of mass destruction. Russia and the United States possess the ability to destroy this world twelve times over. That’s scary in itself. It’s kind of like the logic used by the colonial powers to justify them taking over indigenous peoples, it was their right in essence due to their supposed superiority to rule over them, or in other words, might makes right.
It’s because the countries that have them do not want any other country to have nuclear weapons. Sure, Iran has made threats, but even if it hadn’t the international community would still disapprove.
It’s like the police who are allowed to carry guns around. They don’t want civilians carrying guns around just like them, b/c it would make the entire community less safe.
Basically, the countries which have nuclear weapons feel they have leverage over Iran, but would lose that if Iran had them as well. From the perspective of Iran, it is completely unfair. However, fairness put aside, for the stability of the international community it is in the best interest to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
Israel, the USA, The UK, France, and even Russia have nuclear weapons for self defense only. Iran and it’s kooky leaders have promised to use nuclear weapons to wipe everyone off the earth who happens to disagree with them. That kind of mental instability shows the Muslim fruitcakes are not ready for such dangerous weapons. In short, they would actually use them and nuclear weapons are very bad for people and the environment.
Wow coincidental I asked my teacher the same question when we were having a class discussion. I guess the countries that it have kind of assigned themselves as leaders of who gets nuclear weapons and who doesn’t but I really don’t know why.
i think of the Iranian President’s rants approximately blowing Israel(and the ":west":) out of life, might have some subject to do with different international places no longer looking radicals in possession of Nuclear weapons. there is not any longer any center of the line with the extremist’s ideas-set. it fairly is their way or die! i do no longer think approximately Israel threatening to blow Iran off the globe, because of the incontrovertible fact that they might no longer consider their life. different Arab and Muslim international places get alongside with Israel. Iran does not fairly get alongside with somebody. in the event that they receive the flexibility to create nuclear weapons and everybody in one extra united states of america plenty as says regardless of they do in comparison to, what’s holding those extremist from utilising the weapon.
Because Iran actually threatened to wipe another country off the map. And Iran supports and sponsors terrorism.
Neither the U.S. or Isreali governments have made a public call for the total destruction of another country/culture/religion. I’d say that’s a pretty good reason not to allow someone access to nukes.