If Iran gets a nuclear weapon, would it be any worse than North Korea already having them?
the western countries are very concerned that Iran is about to obtain a nuclear weapon. esp. Israel is, and the U.S. says a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. but i'm not sure if there is enough evidnece to prove that Iran has nuclear weapons but i'm sure they are trying to make them. But North Korea for sure has nuclear weapons no lie, they've tested them in 2006 and 2009 even Russia, China, South Korea, Japan, U.S. and the U.N. put sanctions against North Korea for testing them. but the U.S. never planned to take any action against North Korea, but they do on Iran, at least Romney does. But if Iran gets a nuke would it be any worse than NK having them?
- Jimmy CLv 77 years agoFavorite Answer
It will only be worse for the US and Israel because it will mean that Iran will be a harder target to invade. The US made sure there were no appreciable defensive weapons in Iraq before invading that country, and it wants to make sure there are no significant defenses in Iran so the US can invade or attack at leisure.
North Korea has no oil so is not part to the plan for US imperialism. The long term goal is to dominate the Middle East completely and the US hates countries that do not sell oil in US dollars and do not capitulate under pressure.
Iran needs to build substantial defences against US and Israeli aggression. That is the only way Iran will be safe.
- Anonymous7 years ago
The chance of Global Thermo-Nuclear War, not "Global Geothermal Nuclear War" varies in this modern day world. The reason I say this is because world leaders are too good at their jobs to let this happen. "A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought." - Ronald Reagan. This observation is very accurate and somewhat profound. War is an extension of political policies, take for example the war in Iran as Tom has described well, it is motivated by political interest more than security. If war was to proceed without political purpose it would degenerate into purposeless destruction, or total war. Using Nuclear power to impose political position is an outrageous act, no person elected by a free nation would get away with such a threat to global security. the consequences of such choices are unthinkable. During the Cold War where Nuclear war was imminent, the concept of not firing your missiles was described as MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. No one could make the step towards Nuclear war because the outcomes would be too frightening. In some cases though we have people with Nuclear capabilities who have not come to power by the election of their nation. These people are the biggest threat to capitalist world peace. It is not in the interest of the United States to have launch ready ICBM's in North Korea under unfriendly control. Sure if Iran was Nuclear capable it wouldn't be any worse than North Korea, but the North Korean situation is not a very good one. Iran at this time is more aggressive than North Korea which I suppose makes it a more dangerous situation. It is irrelevant as to whether Iran are Nuclear capable or not as it immediately becomes concerning to the Western World when there is even a chance of new Thermo-Nuclear Warheads. At the end of the day the threat of Thermo-Nuclear war is determined by the actions of those who have the same capabilities and those who oppose the enabling of Nuclear capabilities.
- pillaLv 44 years ago
The united states shouldn't be a type of blood thirsty psychos dear. You don't see 1/2 the violence that's in other nations here within the states. We (un like NK) aren't a chance to yet another nation. NK , if given the possibility, would neuk the united states, most likely SK, and simply in doing that will purpose nuclear fall out in Mexico, Canada, and other Asian countries that are near SK. Additionally ( and as a lot as I dis like Obama) the USA is just not headed through a unstable dictator like Kim Jon sick and the Iranian chief ( UGH i've under no circumstances been excellent at names) I believe its Achmood Achmadedagen. EDIT: Bush was once now not loopy. Lets see you care for a essential crisis after simplest...7 -8 months? On the job. I sincerely feel he saved extra American lives. "that's pure hypocricy, american citizens can certainly not believe of someone but themselves" that declaration is pure hypocricy. You are not able to EVER make a blanket announcement like that THEY DON"T WORK. I am an American and that i occur to suppose about different persons then my self. And even other men and women then my family/friends. I additionally be aware of of masses that do the same. So yea that statement is invalid.
- 7 years ago
No, it will be no worse than Israel having nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran might shift the balance of power in the Middle East and finally put an end to Israeli aggression and occupation.Source(s): . Gork
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- javornik1270Lv 67 years ago
Well, it certainly is a bad news, no doubt about it. The one difference being that North Korea is really a very poor country reliant on foreign help and they would rattle with their bomb alright, but won't really use it, while Iran is a different story. It's a powerful country with fast growing economy and when they say they will bomb the Israelis they mean it !
- Anonymous7 years ago
I don't understand. A nuke is a nuke, but it already seems like the world is preparing for a Global Geothermal Nuclear War if your statements are correct. But at the moment it is 5v1v1 and I'll cut of my best friends wang if 3 out of that 5 do not have nuclear weapons themselves. #ConspiracyTheory
- Shawn RobinLv 77 years ago
Of course it would.
North Korea's not hell-bent on triggering the Islamic version of the Apocalypse.
But Iran sure is:
"A feature-length documentary film, produced by a top adviser to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claims that the cataclysmic events that will usher in an era of Muslim world domination are about to begin, triggered by actions launched by Iran and its Lebanese ally, Hezbollah."
As for Iran's illegal nuclear weapons program, UN inspectors have plenty of evidence:
"43. The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the
development of a nuclear explosive device:
• Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);
• Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex, Section C.3);
• The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and
• Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components (Annex, Sections C.5–C.12)."
"Iran is trying to remove evidence that its scientists tested detonators for nuclear weapons by clearing a military site ahead of a visit by inspectors, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency."
Once Iran gets them, they'll use them. But not how you'd think:
'Iran Plans For A World Without America'
'Electro-Magnetic Pulse 'Space Attack "Quite Likely"'
'EMP Attack Would Send America into a Dark Age'
'EMP attack: Overlooked catastrophe'
As for North Korea, that's a wholly different situation.
The 1950-53 Korean War never actually ended, it only stopped, via a ceasefire agreement.
So technically, the United Nations and North Korea are still at war.
To prevent getting beaten again, North Korea's spent half a century ensuring military action against it would be a Pyrrhic victory by arranging their defences to cause as a bloodbath amongst South Korean's civilians population.
Case in point: The NK's have 5,000 pieces of artillery within range of South Korea's capital city tasked with levelling the city (and its population of 10+ million) as fast as they can fire if anyone takes military action against North Korea.
Having nukes only makes it possible for North Korea to inflict even greater casualties.
Their whole military stance is one of deterrence: Nobody dares attack because the price paid by South Korea will be too high to justify military action.
- CharmedLv 67 years ago
Well said, Jimmy C.
That is what it all boils down to, Iran has oil. That is what this is all about, as usual.
- 7 years ago
the biggest threat to world peace is the US ; who else is it that been bombing the **** out of the rest of the world for the last 50 years? the idea that iran is a threat to the US is like saying that a gazelle is a threat to a lion , dont you get it , your government along with your supine media (look it up) want you to see these countries as threats so that you'll get behind these wars which are being fought not to protect you but for geopolitical control and oil rights. i hate to sound rude but why dont you do some research and educate yourself instead of asking such an ignorant question.
- lightpersonLv 77 years ago
If my neighbor bought a gun for self-defense, I'd have no problem. If he said he was going to buy one, and then use it on me, I'd have a real problem with that.