Should Iran Be Allowed To Have Nuclear Weapons?

[Independent thinker]

Seems like some here are OK with Iran having nuclear weapons. So, I thought it would be interesting to see how many with a poll and how many are against. Pretty much every single country in the world (191 out of 195) has signed the nuclear weapons non proliferation treaty, including Iran.

 

[Cassandro]

China seems to be the main culprit in allowing violations of this treaty.

 

[Churchill]

Seems like some here are OK with Iran having nuclear weapons. So, I thought it would be interesting to see how many with a poll and how many are against. Pretty much every single country in the world (191 out of 195) has signed the nuclear weapons non proliferation treaty, including Iran.

How should the matter be decided for any given country?

 

[BS Filter]

How should the matter be decided for any given country?

What group should decide?

 

[Independent thinker]

China seems to be the main culprit in allowing violations of this treaty.

Yup, we've got 98% of the world who have signed onto the treaty and yet China cozies up to North Korea and Iran both.

 

[Independent thinker]

How should the matter be decided for any given country?

Well, Iran signed the treaty not to have nuclear weapons so doesn't that mean they shouldn't have them?

 

[Churchill]

Well, Iran signed the treaty not to have nuclear weapons so doesn't that mean they shouldn't have them?

I have no idea, did the treaty stipulate anything about that?

 

[Churchill]

What group should decide?

You tell me, that's what I'masking - what is the process for deciding whether some country to be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

Is there any process even?

 

[Independent thinker]

I have no idea, did the treaty stipulate anything about that?

Jesus, you are a moron. Iran signed the non proliferation treaty stating that no new countries should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, other than the ones who already have them. Doesn't that mean that Iran shouldn't have them?

 

[toomuchtime_]

How should the matter be decided for any given country?

Decided by whom? The issue will be decided, as always, by countries that are powerful enough to stop them.

 

[Churchill]

Jesus, you are a moron. Iran signed the non proliferation treaty stating that no new countries should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, other than the ones who already have them.

I know.

Doesn't that mean that Iran shouldn't have them?

I don't know, the treaty itself contains no penalty clauses, the only possible consequence is for the UN security council to meet and make a decision.

 

[Churchill]

Decided by whom? The issue will be decided, as always, by countries that are powerful enough to stop them.

Not if those powerful countries are UN members.

 

[braalian]

You tell me, that's what I'masking - what is the process for deciding whether some country to be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

Is there any process even?

I think it’s always been clear that, going forward, only the great powers of the world that already had nuclear weapons upon signing (America, Russia, China, France, the UK) are allowed under the treaty

If you weren’t already a nuclear power when you signed the treaty, you’re SOL

For obvious reasons, it’s a bad idea for every rinky-dink country to be allowed to build them

 

[toomuchtime_]

Not if those powerful countries are UN members.

All of the most powerful countries are UN members but that is irrelevant. Powerful countries act in their own best interests regardless of what the UN says.

 

[Churchill]

All of the most powerful countries are UN members but that is irrelevant.

Not if honoring committments is a concern. Every UN member has agreed to abide by the UN charter. If you're OK with powerful countries violating that charter why are you fussed about other countries violating treaties?

Powerful countries act in their own best interests regardless of what the UN says.

Sure, if you're prepared to violate international law, in which case you can't complain about other countries violating treaties.

Iran can be easily dealt with under the UN charter, just draft a resolution about the alleged Iranian violation and decide on some action and vote for that.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I think it’s always been clear that, going forward, only the great powers of the world that already had nuclear weapons upon signing (America, Russia, China, France, the UK) are allowed under the treaty

If you weren’t already a nuclear power when you signed the treaty, you’re SOL

For obvious reasons, it’s a bad idea for every rinky-dink country to be allowed to build them

The NPT is irrelevant. The Shah's government signed the treaty and the ayatollahs have been in nearly constant violation of it since 1979.


AI Overview
Yes, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has formally declared Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations as recently as June 2025. This marked the first time since 2005 that the 35-member board of the UN nuclear watchdog passed such a resolution.
Foundation for Defense of Democracies +2
Recent Non-Compliance Findings
The IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution on June 12, 2025, stating that Iran's "many failures" to provide answers about undeclared nuclear material and activities constitute non-compliance with its NPT Safeguards Agreement.
BBC

• Undeclared Material: Iran has failed to provide "technically credible explanations" for the presence of man-made uranium particles at undeclared locations, including sites in Varamin, Marivan, and Turquzabad.
• Restricted Access: Since June 2025, the Agency has not received nuclear material accountancy reports and has lacked access to nearly all safeguarded nuclear facilities in Iran.
• Advanced Enrichment: Iran is the only non-nuclear-weapon state to produce 60% highly enriched uranium (HEU), a level near weapons-grade (90%) for which there is no credible civilian justification. By May 2025, Iran's stockpile of 60% HEU reached over 408 kilograms, enough for multiple nuclear weapons if further enriched.
  UN News +3

History of Violations
Iran's history of NPT violations dates back decades:

• 2003–2005: Following the 2002 exposure of secret facilities at Natanz and Arak, the IAEA identified a 1985–2003 "policy of concealment." In September 2005, the IAEA first found Iran in non-compliance and later referred the matter to the UN Security Council in February 2006.
• Clandestine Activities: Investigations revealed various clandestine activities, including the Green Salt Project and possession of documents for manufacturing uranium metal hemispheres (necessary for weapon assembly).
• JCPOA Breaches: Since 2019, following the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran has increasingly breached the limits of the 2015 deal, which was based on NPT regulations.
  The Iran Primer +3

Threatened Withdrawal from the NPT
In response to recent IAEA censures and military strikes on its facilities in June 2025 and February 2026, the Iranian parliament has been preparing a bill to withdraw from the NPT entirely.
Al Jazeera +2
Potential Consequences of Withdrawal

[td]Legal Status [/td][td]Iran would no longer be bound by NPT requirements, including the legal obligation not to build nuclear weapons.[/td] [td]Monitoring[/td][td]Withdrawal would end International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) oversight and monitoring of Iran's nuclear activities.[/td] [td]Regional Impact[/td][td]A withdrawal could trigger a regional nuclear arms race; Saudi Arabia has previously vowed to match Iran's nuclear capabilities.[/td]

 

[toomuchtime_]

Not if honoring committments is a concern. Every UN member has agreed to abide by the UN charter. If you're OK with powerful countries violating that charter why are you fussed about other countries violating treaties?

Sure, if you're prepared to violate international law, in which case you can't complain about other countries violating treaties.

Iran can be easily dealt with under the UN charter, just draft a resolution about the alleged Iranian violation and decide on some action and vote for that.

It is a fact that powerful countries act in their own interests regardless of what the UN says, since the most powerful countries have a veto at the UNSC so the UN can never order them to not take an action.

 

[BS Filter]

You tell me, that's what I'masking - what is the process for deciding whether some country to be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

Is there any process even?

Nope.

 

[Churchill]

It is a fact that powerful countries act in their own interests regardless of what the UN says, since the most powerful countries have a veto at the UNSC so the UN can never order them to not take an action.

So why do you expect any country to honor treaties when it's public knowledge that powerful self-interested states consider themselves unrestrained by international law?

Its like you coming to my house and telling to me abide by your understainding of the law else you'll attack me with impunity, irrespective of any law.

 

[BS Filter]

Not if those powerful countries are UN members.

The UN has no power over anyone.