I agree with Kahl’s article, “Iran and the Bomb” because I also believe that theorists, Kenneth Waltz, is respectfully wrong in a sense that the Islamic Republic would become more responsible as an international actor if it crossed the nuclear threshold (CITE). In fact, Iran could be somewhat dissuaded from purposely using nuclear weapons themselves or giving devices to terrorists, …show more content…
1 CITE WHY IRAN). It could mean the complete opposite. In addition, Iran shows retaliation against the United States, Israel and other states by supporting terrorist groups and militants throughout the Middle East (CITE). This definitely makes Iran questionable with their intentions because the state is already nervous about being undermined from others. The Iranian government appears to support the use of nuclear weapons in order to pressure and intimidate other states, which is not a responsible way to use such an intense weapon. Since this weaponry has the ability to increase violent terrorist attacks, it is vital for states to be aware and take caution when dealing with Iran now. Even though already true, it seems risky and terrifying that Iran has the same nuclear power as the United States (CITE pg. 3)
The book Hiroshima is a strong influencer when comparing these articles’ facts and opinions because everything was put in perspective in this book. The outcome of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was realistically described, making the event relate to any audience. The TYPEatomic bombs devastating long-term effects on the people of Hiroshima makes the thought of any country with this type of weaponry power seem