Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 3 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
OpEdNews Op Eds   

Nuclear Iran, Good or Bad?

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   3 comments
Message irwin wingo
Should Iran become a member of the club of rogue nations? My definition of a rogue state is a nation that has nuclear weapons in its arsenal. Like China or North Korea. Pakistan and India are also bad guys in this respect and it is quite likely if there is ever a nuclear exchange it will between these two rogue states. Russia has enough nuclear bite to masticate civilization as we know it into tiny bite size pieces. Israel, the poster child nation for rogue states, has nukes, over 120 of them, it is said. France and Britain are knee deep in nuclear devices, ergo; France and Britain are rogue nations.

This brings us to the grand pappy of all rouge countries- the United States of America. We have nukes out the kazoo. Big nukes and little nukes, clean nukes and nasty ones. The other rogue states are to date just bullies filled with radioactive braggadocio. America, the land of liberty, has demonstrated its lack of moral compunction about the use of weapons of mass destruction. The current leader of the US has abrogated the long standing policy that America will never use nuclear force first, never preemptively, even though it has done so in the past. George Bush says he can nuke whoever or whatever he wants to nuke and write it off to national security. The author of the war in Iraq and the savior of the city of New Orleans with nukes in his incompetent but unstable and homicidal grasp does not inspire one to luxuriate in the notion of tranquility.

Life is not overwhelmed by fairness. The big critters eat the little critters and the little critters gang up and eat the big critters. And God is on Its throne and all is right in the universe. But there does seem to be this phenomenon: countries don't get pushed around, Iraqed as it were, if they have nukes. How long will this hold up? No one knows. India recently let it be known that they can survive a nuclear swap with Pakistan whereas the Pakistanis or most of them will become dead. Sure the Indians would lose millions of its citizens but when a country has so many spare people, what the hey? This should make the West proud it is shipping jobs and its kid's futures to places with such creative ideas on human welfare. I can imagine Gandhi's ashes turning in their watery internment. It also might be noted that the West's record on human rights is less than sterling.

So the nuclear powers, to this juncture, make nice with one another, or at least, snarl at one another with their fanged dentures still in a glass of water, bedside. Thank God for that, although competing versions of God might well be the lack of reason for a future nuclear war. Even North Korea doesn't get stomped on or occupied or covertly or overtly invaded as say, the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Viet Nam, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Grenada, Haiti and to make the US not the only bad guy let's throw in Tibet, Chechnya, and more recently Lebanon. So why then would Iran or Syria or Venezuela or Cuba for that matter not want nuclear capacity?

Since there is no chance in hell that the present rouge countries will unrogue themselves what are other nations to do? Go to the United Nations? Slight problem there; all the permanent members on the UN Security Council are nuclear bomb toting rogues.

The question morphs into this: might the world in general and the Middle East in particular become more peaceful and just if Iran has a whole gaggle of nukes? If that were the case would the Western powers and Israel still feel obligated to torment, invade, torture and murder people in this part of the world whenever the mood strikes them? Or, is this thought of the utility of nuclear expansion just more of the chic and total insanity of the present world. Would deranged Islamic extremists in Iran use nukes to nefarious and murderous ends? Deranged Christian extremists haven't done so again in over sixty years. Would a balanced playing field bring about negotiation rather than hijacked planes flying into buildings and people getting dosed with cluster bombs and white phosphorous? I don't know.

Is there other choices rather than nations who love to bomb people and nations who oppress their peoples and celebrate honor killings of teenage girls? Maybe not. Do we really live in a world where the spread of nuclear weapons and the horror attendant to that is actually the best we can do?
Rate It | View Ratings

Irwin Wingo Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

irwin like the president is a texan. irwin unlike the president does no believe that god has told him to slaughter people.

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Nuclear Iran, Good or Bad?

Trash Cans, Embyros and God

Has Rush Limbaugh sealed the deal for the democrats?

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend