Comments:Iran releases five detained Britons

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


the Iranians are trying to send a strong messge to the world that they ready to clash head with another country especially the western countries if they test their capabilities. at the other end, Iran knows better that america's military is over starined by the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it would be a big mistake on the americans to go into war with them.

i find it hard to understand the american policies. most developed countries have nuclear arms and how come it is only Iran that can not have a nuclear facility.

Iran can't have nukes for the same reason we don't let children go to school with slingshots. Granted, some of the children wouldn't shoot everything, but you know somebody is going to go hogwild. Until they get older, mature (as shown by Iran's relationships with it's neighbors and citizens, they are far from mature) it would be unwise to trust them with something destructive. Since we're talking about nuclear power and, by proxy, nuclear weapons, it would be extremely unwise to trust them. The United States was the birthplace of the nuclear bomb. We've used it in anger twice, the only two times nukes have been used in anger. Even then, it was desperate move to avoid a high-cost, high-casualty invasion.
What's stopping the third angry nuke from landing on Tel Aviv? Frankly, any little nuke they launch at the US would be first, swatted out of the sky or simply ignored because it had no way to even cross the Atlantic. This is more about global stability, ensuring that a vicious firefight doesn't erupt. I'm almost one hundred percent certain that preventing strategic or tactical nuclear weapon deployment is on everyone's to do list; not just the United States.--64.90.84.103 (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A nuclear armed Iran will push other middle east nations to arms themselves. Saudi arabia, Egypt and Turkey have all freezed their nuclear programs in the past but they could resume it if they fell menaced by Iran. In the end you will have a lot of new nuclear countries augmenting the risk of intentional or accidental nuclear war. There are already too much nukes in the world to just say: hey they got bombs why everyone else can not have too?