Home | About | Donate

Which is the Most Responsible Nuclear Nation – Iran, Israel or the United States?


Which is the Most Responsible Nuclear Nation – Iran, Israel or the United States?

Kevin Martin

The U.S. and five other world powers – Russia, China, Germany, France and the United Kingdom, known collectively as the P5+1 for the permanent United Nations Security Council members plus Germany – hope to soon conclude an agreement with Iran in order to address concerns over its nuclear program. With this agreement near (assuming the U.S.


Another in a parade of stupid headlines chosen by Commondreams editors.

What defines a "nuclear nation"? One that has hospitals using radiation treatments? One that has nuclear power plants? One that has nuclear weapons? One that has considered creating nuclear weapons? One that admits to having nuclear weapons?

The headline really blurs these definitions...to what purpose?


ahimsa72 wrote:

'Another in a parade of stupid headlines chosen by Commondreams editors.

'What defines a "nuclear nation"? One that has hospitals using radiation treatments? One that has nuclear power plants? One that has nuclear weapons? One that has considered creating nuclear weapons? One that admits to having nuclear weapons?'

Isn't it patently apparent that a "nuclear nation" is one that produces nuclear energy and that has nuclear reactors? The headline merely asks which of the cited three is the most responsible. It seems difficult to find fault with that.


Who is the most responsible nuclear nation? Isn't that a bit like asking who is the serial killer with the best table manners?



The fact that it asks, "Which is the most responsible?" clearly infers that it means those with nuclear weapons, in my opinion.


Anybody familiar with the author should know that his reference to the Hibakusha, clearly demonstrates that ridding the planet altogether of nuclear weapons is his primary objective. He believes there is a global consensus for universal disarmament and then outlines reasons why this is imperative but unlikely to be addressed by critisizing the numerous shortcomings of all of the nuclear weapon countries... including the U.S. and Israel.
I would go further by saying that we have a global academic consensus that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan were racist and unneccessary. Yet at the UN next month in New York, a 2015 Nobel Peace Prize nominee, social worker and a Hibakusha, Mrs. Setsuko Thurlow will address the UN and explain to the international body at least one excellent reason why nuclear weapons can never be used again. A standing ovation will surely follow. But despite the hoopla and congradulations all around, the U.S. will not apologize to Setsuko or any of the Hibakusha after her speech. Nor will the U.S. pay reparations (the Hibakusha only ask for abolishing alll nuclear weapons) and the U.S. government will make absolutely no pledge to rid themselves and the world of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", no pledge to lessen their production and sales and maybe the worst of all, no pledge to ever not use a nuclear bomb again.
This farce is never explained by the MSM giving the average viewer and listener the impression that any discussion of nuclear disarmament is not really credible in the first place. But in reality it is not up for discussion simply because several special interest groups have too much to lose in disarming the current arsenal. It's a perfect example of the inability of the 99% to influence domestic and foreign policy decisions despite have an overwhelming consensus on the absurdity of using any nuclear weapons again. The official rhetorical response from the U.S. following the historic UN meeting will be predictable as will its delivery system. Who knows? Maybe a Twitter feed will go viral at the right time and our MSM and politicans will be unable to ignore it? Perhaps some country will unpredictably offer to "go first" in the global pledge to disarm? But most liekly it will be nothing more than a short news bite never to be revisited again and the nuclear threat will keep marching on.


Black pots

And an empty kettle


In the 1970's Vanunu the Israelie scientists on nuclear stated Israel had over 700 then. How many do you think they have now...thousands? Jonathan Pollard was convicted of stealing nuclear secrets from the US and is serving life. In the 50's Israel stole uranium and plutonium from Aleppo Pa. These are the SECRETS the US has known for decades and kept it quiet.Why? Because US law prohibits the US from aiding and abetting any nation who has undeclared nuclear weapons i.e. Israel. Last week the Pentagon came out stating Israel has nuclear weapons (they have chemical and biological too)....the refused to sign the Nuclear Proliferation Agreement...out of fear their nanny state the US would now longer give them billions every year to get more weapons of mass destruction to attack their neighbors and threaten the world. Israel has already attacked the US...they did so with the USS Liberty...google that. They slaughtered our sailors in international waters and that was covered up for decades too, until recently, when the survivors ended their forced silence. Israel is not an ally of the US, we have NO treaties of any kind with that rogue apartheid nation. Israel offered South Africa nuclear weapons too....today a story is out that South Africa has 500 lbs of plutonium....so why aren't they on the watch list of terrorist nations along with Israel.


Such a question including all nuclear weapons powers would lead to an interesting discussion concerning Pakistan and India. Pakistan is half-way to being a failed state with apocalyptic Islamic extremists at the helm.


The author expressed puzzlement about the claim that Israel would not be "the first to introduce nuclear weapons”. This phrase is just part of the charade. In 1961 the US put missiles in Italy and Turkey, within range of the Soviet Union. This (among other things) led the Soviets to put missiles in Cuba, precipitating the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

Turkey is technically in the middle east. Therefore, when Israeli officials claim that they will not be the first to introduce nukes to the region, they are just making words without giving away any information. The US introduced nukes to the middle east. Israel will not be the first to introduce them. As I say, it's just another piece of the charade.


And India's is being lead by a coalition of RSS and BJP well known extremist groups.


Iran signed the non proliferation treaty, Israel did not. Iran has the right to nuclear power under the treaty, Israel already has nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The US, as the article mentions, is the only nation on earth that has dropped nuclear bombs on the civilians of another nation. In truth the Security Council should never have sanctioned Iran for wanting nuclear power. It should have sanctioned Israel for getting nuclear weapons and thereby causing the Middle East to be destabilized. If Israel has the weapons why shouldn't Iran have them (even though Iran has stated it doesn't want them and its religious leaders forbid the nuclear weapons option). Here we have three nations, two of which have nuclear weapons, one of which has used them, two of which have attacked, invaded and in some cases occupied other nations territory and one of which hasn't attacked another nation in 300 years. Guess which nation I think is the most responsible?