Iran & Nuclear Armaments: The Sequel/War in Iran!

Since this attempt at opening a discussion has failed, I shall try again, hopefully more clearly.

Can Iran be trusted with nuclear weapons - ie, explosive devices based on nuclear fission?

As a sovereign nation, should they be allowed to purchase such devices? What if they design and construct them without foreign aid?

What effects will the acquisition of nuclear armaments on Iran's part have in the Middle East and the world? Good or ill?

Note: to keep the discussion on track, minimize discussion of Israel. :book:

It's unfathomable to me that anyone in their right mind would think Ahmadinejad has the intellectual or emotional faculties to bear this sort of power.

I don't think iran will use them, becuase they know the consequences, but i still say no to nuclear weapons.

I know i'll mention isreal, just bare with me ok.

Isrealis nuclear weapons is destablising the region, i'm all for defending themselves, but nukes is not the way. But anyways, in my honest opinion, the US should be more active and start monitoring Iran, Iran did allow inspectors, so they should start there. So long as no more nuclear powers are added to the roster i'm fine.

Everyone arms, or everyone disarms. Why should Isreal have them when others don't? or Russia or the US, or China? If Iran gets them who is going to want them next?

NO. Anyone that says Isreal should be wiped off the map really should not have that kind of firepower. Furthermore, I can't remember the exact quote, but he said a while ago about how they should kill all the Christians and Jews.

For those reasons and about thousand others, i say NO. Don't try to convince me otherwise, because my answer is concrete.

I think nucular weapons should be Dissarmed by All and I also beleve that They should NEVER be built by any 1 EVER again.

So Thats a definative NO,
--
I dont like one country telling people what to do all the time,
If a 3rd world country needs Power to expand and the Best way for them to do that is to build a nucular power plant.
I say let them build one.

I beleve ALL countrys Should Be allowed to create NUCULAR Power.....

However 1st thing this happens, The americans Start demanding that they stop.

I know thats off topic.
But i wanted to say it any way.

As others have already stated, I can see only very negative consequences if a country whose leader has stated his desire to wipe Israel off the map obtains the means to do so.

Here's the full text of the speech:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loud Iranian Hardliner

I am grateful to God for giving me the great pleasure of speaking at this very important gathering. I thank God for seeing the pious faces of you, the valiant, aware, God-fearing and selfless children of the revolution, who understand with vigilance and intelligence the most important issues of our times and are active with great zest and in a decisive way in the most central issues of the Islamic world. I thank God for the presence of you dear young people.

The real question is what is Zionism? No doubt there have been many discussions in this conference on this issue and you have made studies in this regard, and you may know what I want to emphasize, but it is something worth mentioning.

We must see what the real story of Palestine is. Is the conflict in Palestine a war between some Jews on the one side and Muslims and non-Jews on the other side? Is it a war between the Jews and other faiths? Is it the war of one country with other countries? Is it the war of one country with the Arab world? Is the conflict only over the limited lands of Palestine? I think the answer to all these questions is negative.

The creation of the regime occupying Al-Qods (Jerusalem) was a heavy move by the globally dominant system and Global Arrogance against the Islamic world. There is a historic battle going on between the Oppressor World and the Islamic world and the roots of this conflict goes back hundreds of years.

In this historic conflict, the fronts have shifted many times. There were times when the Muslims had the upper hand and were active and forward-moving, while the Oppressor World was on retreat.

Unfortunately, in the past three hundred years, the Islamic world has been on retreat in the face of the Oppressor World.

I do not intend to go to the roots of the issue and I concentrate on a historical review of the events. In the past one hundred years, the last trenches of the Islamic world fell and the Oppressor World created the regime occupying Al-Qods as the bridgehead for its domination of the Islamic world. Bridgehead is a military term in warfare. When two divisions or armies are fighting each other, if one side advances and breaks through the front and captures a piece of enemy territory and builds up fortifications and strengthens its hold to make it a base for further territorial expansion, then we call this a bridgehead.

The occupying state (Israel) is the bridgehead of the Oppressor World in the heart of the Islamic world. They have built a base to expand their domination to the entire Islamic world. There is no other raison d’etre for this entity without this objective.

The battle that is going on in Palestine today, therefore, is the frontline of the conflict between the Islamic world and the Oppressor World. It is a battle of destiny that will determine the fate of hundreds of years of conflict in Palestine.

Today, the Palestinian nation is fighting the Oppressor World on behalf of the Islamic umma (nation). Thank God, from the day the Palestinian nation moved towards an Islamic struggle with Islamic objectives and an Islamic environment, and made Islam the dominating force in its behaviour and orientation, we have been witnessing the progress and successes of the Palestinian nation every day.

I must say that you have chosen a very valuable title for your gathering [World Without Zionism]. Many are sowing the seeds of defeat and despair in this all-out war between the Islamic world and the Infidel Front, hoping to dishearten the Islamic world.

Such people are using words like “it’s not possible”. They say how could we have a world without America and Zionism? But you know well that this slogan and goal can be achieved and can definitely be realised”.

If we take a look back, we had in our country a regime that was very violent, anti-popular, dependent on foreigners, and armed to its teeth. Members of SAVAK [the Shah’s secret police] controlled every move and a terrible reign of terror existed.

But when the dear Imam [Ruhollah Khomeini] said this regime must be destroyed, and we want a world without a client state, many of those who claim to be political gurus and other things said it’s not possible. The day when the Imam started his move, all the powers of the world supported that corrupt regime. Even after the massacre of Black Friday, the West and the East and regional powers all supported the regime. But our nation fought and now for 27 years we have a government that is independent of America. The Imam said the domination of the East and the West must be destroyed, but weak-minded persons, who only see the little world around them, didn’t believe him…

Our dear Imam ordered that the occupying regime in Al-Qods be wiped off the face of the earth. This was a very wise statement. The issue of Palestine is not one on which we could make a piecemeal compromise… This would mean our defeat. Anyone who would recognize this state [Israel] has put his signature under the defeat of the Islamic world.

In his struggle against the World Arrogance, our dear Imam targeted the central and command base of the enemy, namely the occupying regime in Al-Qods. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in dear Palestine and which we witness today all over the Islamic world will soon wipe this scourge of shame from the Islamic world. This can be done.

We have to watch out for conspiracies. For more than 50 years, the World Arrogance has tried to give recognition to the existence of this fake regime [Israel] and they have make many efforts to first stabilize it and then take further steps.

Some 27 or 28 years ago, they took an important step in this regard and, unfortunately, one of the frontline countries made this mistake, and we hope that country [Egypt] will rectify its mistake.

Recently, a new conspiracy has been plotted and is underway. They have been forced to evacuate a corner of Palestine and this was imposed on them by the Palestinian nation. But they want to sell this as the final victory and use the evacuation of Gaza and the creation of a Palestinian state as an excuse to end the Palestinian cause and goal.

Today they are making an evil and deceptive effort to turn the struggle into an internal conflict of the Islamic world. They want to create conflict among Palestinian groups inside Palestine by making them greedy for political positions or high office, so that these groups abandon the decisive issue fo Palestine and turn on each other.

With the excuse of having cleared the Gaza Strip to show their good will, they want a group of Muslim nations to recognise this corrupt regime, and I am very hopeful and pray to God that the Palestinian nation and the dear Palestinian groups will be cautious of such sedition.

Today the unity of the front in Palestine on its goals is a pressing necessity. The issue of Palestine is by no means finished. The issue of Palestine will only be resolved when all of Palestine comes under Palestinian rule, when all the refugees return to their homes, and when a popular government chosen by this nation takes the affairs in its hands. Of course, those who have come to this land from far away to plunder this land have no right to participate in the decision-making process for this nation.

I am hopeful that just as the Palestinian nation continued its struggle for the past ten years, it will continue to maintain its awareness and vigilance. This phase is going to be short-lived. If we put it behind us successfully, God willing, it will pave the way for the annihilation of the Zionist regime and it will be a downhill route.

I warn all the leaders in the Islamic world to beware of this conspiracy. If any of them takes a step towards the recognition of this regime [Israel], then he will burn in the fire of the Islamic umma (nation) and will have eternal shame stamped on his forehead, regardless of whether he did this under pressure by the dominant powers, or lack of understanding or naiveté or selfishness or worldly incentives.

The issue of Palestine is the issue of the Islamic world. Those who are closeted behind closed doors cannot make decisions on this issue and the Islamic nation does not allow this historical enemy to exist at the heart of the Islamic world.

---

Definitely some hardline rhetoric here, and the guy obviously hates Israel, but the part about "killing Jews and Christians" is probably not true, otherwise we would have all heard of it by now (and I'm getting quite sick of hearing him).

Then again, the same guy also said this:

How do you dispel the impression that Iran is making a nuclear weapon?

"Our religion prohibits us from having nuclear arms. Our religious leader has prohibited it from the point of view of religious law. It's a closed road. We even don't need it; we can guarantee our security in other ways … During the past two years, more then 1,200 inspections have taken place in our country. More than 1,030 documents have been given to the IAEA. All the IAEA cameras are fixed on our facilities, and the IAEA supervisors can control every action within our facilities. We have proven amply that we are conforming to regulations."

To answer the question (again). Should Iran have nuclear weapons? Hell :no:, but then again, in an ideal world, neither should we....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Can Iran be trusted with nuclear weapons - ie, explosive devices based on nuclear fission?

---

No.

Quote:

---

As a sovereign nation, should they be allowed to purchase such devices? What if they design and construct them without foreign aid?

---

No.

Quote:

---

What effects will the acquisition of nuclear armaments on Iran's part have in the Middle East and the world? Good or ill?

---

Worst case ill, best case none. When we're dealing with nuclear weapons and a country run by fundamentalist clerics, we can't risk ill. I don't care if they are a soveriegn nation- you cant just sit by and wring your hands if your neighbor is building a giant cannon that's pointed at your house and say to yourself 'What can I do? It's their land'

If Iran gets nukes, then I say Madagascar should get nukes!

Long Live Madagascar!

The speech by that nutjob makes me answer even more concrete then before. I'd be willing you use military action to take him out if it were necessary.
Let the Flames Against me Begin.

No particular person, nor a corporation, not even any government can be trusted when having weapons of mass destruction in their hands, or the technology to produce it. However this has it's limitations and Iran is using it for civil development as stated so I don't see anything wrong.

The polemical treaty of Non Proliferation (1968) signed by almost all sovereing nations (with the exception that all of the five permanent members of the UN can still have weapons of mass destruction) was from the begining a failure, born asimetrical and still generating problems in international relationships.

This was always a question of hipocresy. Now when affecting a nation with a polemical government, wich probably needs it for generating work and devoloping production, all comes to the safety of the entire world. I admit that Ahmadinejad is a bit of a worry, at least for what he says, but there's something that I found profundly unjust with that treaty, wich shouldn't be respected by any nation, and it's that they aren't in a line of equality.
So if the question is you should be worried, well I already answered, but if it's "it should be allowed", of course, as long there's other nations that are allowed, then I don't see why this particular one don't. Perhaps it all comes to the administrative or even moral superiority that some nations are believed to have, but that I don't eat.

Iran in a treaty stated that in order to recieve aid and assistance in developing their nuclear energy that they would not use the gained knowledge to pursue nuclear weapons.

As we know treaties between nations are not enforcable by the International Community - unless one of the nations involved in the treaty wish to enforce the treaty,

Iran has the ablity and the soverign right to attempt to build nuclear weapons in violation of the agreed upon treaties, if it so desires

However the converse is also true. Nations that signed the treaty with Iran, can attempt to enforce the agreed upon treaty if they so desire.

Its really a damned if you do - damned if you don't scenerio

Edit: Incomplete sentence was corrected

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Perhaps it all comes to the administrative or even moral superiority that some nations are believed to have, but that I don't eat.

---

Yes, good point. Perhaps some nations have more motives to use them than others though? At this point in time. Everything can change ofcourse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

It's unfathomable to me that anyone in their right mind would think Ahmadinejad has the intellectual or emotional faculties to bear this sort of power.

---

The development of such weaponry always has a profound effect on the society and political system of the country involved. That is because its possible use invites equally massive retaliation from the opposition, so crucial decisions are never left to single leaders or grey eminences.

It is a paradox: because the possession of nuclear arms invites possible massive retribution, it leads to more responsible behaviour. This is merely a rule of experience, not a physical law or a logical necessity.

The development toward nuclear arms is nearly always controlled by military and technical experts, whilst the outcome dictates the establishment of all sorts of cautionary procedures and (confidential) international agreements, hotlines, etcetera.

At the time of the Indian nuclear tests (1998) the governing Hindu-fascists in Delhi were spouting the worst kind of rhetoric, comparing their nuclear missiles to Hindu phalluses and other symbols of manhood that would wipe out the Pakistani foe. Islamabad responded in kind. However, to close observers it was clear that both governments were merely playing to the gallery of their public opinion, whereas behind the screens they were sealing off all possibilities of abuse or mistaken assumptions on the part of the opposition. A new sense of security resulting from their nuclear arms has brought the two counties closer instead of widening the gap between them.

Let us hope that the development of an Iranian nuclear capability will have a similar effect in the Middle East. Much of Ahmadinejad's language seems to be a reaction to perceived foreign threats, some of which (Israel, U.S.) are only too real.

Chances are that as soon as Tehran possesses a usable nuclear weapon, it will establish a hotline with Tel Aviv.

Good post dude, sounds enitrely feasible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

The development of such weaponry always has a profound effect on the society and political system of the country involved. That is because its possible use invites equally massive retaliation from the opposition, so crucial decisions are never left to single leaders or grey eminences.

It is a paradox: because the possession of nuclear arms invites possible massive retribution, it leads to more responsible behaviour. This is merely a rule of experience, not a physical law or a logical necessity.

---

A valid point for consideration. I suspect that you are correct. The USA has certainly been reluctant to use atomic/nuclear weaponry since observing the results of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- despite finding ourselves in tactical situations where nuclear weapons would have been a tactically useful tool [notably against the massed "volunteer" Chinese forces that attacked UN forces in North Korea].

My concerns with the spread of nuclear weapons technology really aren't connected to the States that possess them (as you say, they have a valid fear of retribution to deter silliness), but to the degree of security that these weapons and materials have in various countries. An extra-national organization that came in possession of a poorly secured weapon would have little to deter them from using it [e.g. Just who would we nuke if a terrorist cell detonated a TNW in Tel Aviv. Even were the group supported by Hussein in Damascus, would Israel feel justified in wiping a largely innocent city out when the nation involved began denying culpability? The terrorists might get off a free shot.]

I know countries have a vested interest in securing their nuclear weapons better than anything else they have, but just how large will the nuclear club grow before someone slips up. Heavens, states of the former CCCP already have problems with this.


The USA and other nuclear powers may have no "legitimate" right to prevent the acquisition of same by another sovereign country -- but it is almost certainly in our interest to prevent it. Following the 9-11-01 attacks, it seems possible that any US administration would have a lot of incentive to err on the side of caution and security despite the cost to international relations and good will.

Agreed Seamus. I seriously doubt Iran would actually be foolish enough to directly use nuclear weapons. But given their track record of supporting global terrorism, I'm more worried about what they'll be giving their friends in Hamas and Islamic Jihad, then claiming they had nothing to do with it.

Somebody mentioned selling them the technology. I totally disagree with that. I believe part of the process has to be developing it on your own, with your own scientists. Somebody also mentioned it would provide an effective deterrant to Israel. As far as I know, Israel has engaged in offensive actions twice: 1) when they bombed a nuclear weapons research facility in Iraq and 2) when they invaded Lebanon and secured the Lebanese/Israeli border which the Syrians were using to shell positions within Israel. So I don't know how much stock I put in that argument.

And Adrian, I'm sorry, I fail to see the correlation between Israli/US agression towards Iran and President Ahmadinejad's expression of his desire for the destruction of Israel, other than in indirect terms. Maybe you could provide me with some more information on this? Maybe beginning with where Iran has been the victim of US or Israeli agression in the past few years?

Interesting take on the India/Pakistan conflicts in the 90s. While I'll agree that the Indians made some foolishly irresponsible statements at times, as they say it takes two to tango and Pakistan seems to get off rather lightly in the analysis.

All that being said, I still hold that the sovereignty of nations is absolute, and if Iran has the brainpower to develop nuclear weapons on their own, nobody else has the right to prevent them from doing so. We do have the right to prevent them from using them offensively or sharing them with 3rd parties, but that's not the root question of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

An extra-national organization that came in possession of a poorly secured weapon would have little to deter them from using it (..)

---

Point taken. But here the India-Pakistan situation is instructive as well because of a major departure from the Cold War equation as we (thought we) knew it.

During the Cold War the dominant view held that mutually assured destruction was most pertinent among 'enduring rivals' such as the U.S. and the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union and China, etcetera. Because their differences were ideological and determined by issues of classic (territorial) power politics, not by otherwordly concerns, they would act or respond rationally to perceived threats and opportunities. Neither would cross the nuclear threshold because the consequences were deemed 'unthinkable'.

Of course we will never know whether this is true; the mere fact that nuclear war did not occur does not prove that mutually assured destruction was the sole or even the main operative principle. According to some modern strategic thinkers, the success of Cold War deterrence may have been a question of 'luck'...

Enter India and Pakistan, two enduring rivals: they had been at odds since 1947, they had waged three conventional wars and were preparing a fourth because of lingering suspicions that the other side might go nuclear at any moment.

When both went nuclear in 1998, the theory of deterrence was put to a new test since their main difference was not territorial or economic, but religious (Muslim versus Hindu, even though India would officially deny the latter as its state religion). And the otherwordly orientation of religion could be expected to make the 'unthinkable' thinkable after all.

Instead, the formal acquisition of nuclear weapons by both states introduced a whole new dynamic to their relationship.

1. First off, the formal announcements, actual tests and published nuclear doctrines on both sides served to clear the air. Both nations now had the 'bomb' and there was no more room for festering suspicions on the subject.

2. Secondly, both were forced to think in terms of mutual destruction. They discovered the need for consultation, as well as mutual and international cooperation, in order to prevent escalation. India and Pakistan had always refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (1970) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (1996) on grounds that they were discriminatory and merely prolonged 'nuclear Apartheid'. After 1998 they began to think like Americans and Europeans. And they learned fast: the 1999 Kargil skirmish was contained in the same manner as the superpower stand-offs of the Cold War.

3. Thirdly, religion apparently does not make elites less selfish and less bent of their own physical and political subsistence. Mind you: even amid the horrific proliferation practices of Dr Khan throughout the 1990's, no nuclear materials or production secrets were ever sold to non-state groups. Pakistani officials who contemplated such a sale were fired or even shot.

The tentative conclusion should be that religious regimes behave rationally (i.e. along the same lines as non-religious state actors) and that there is no reason to fear an Iranian nuclear weapon more than an Indian or Pakistani one. That is reassuring.

But this does not exclude the possibility you mentioned: that nuclear technology ends up in the hands of religious non-state actors who think the 'unthinkable'. The only reassurance we have in this case is classic deterrence: any state that is even remotely involved with a non-state actor in the pursuit of nuclear arms will itself risk total annihilation. Remember that every atom in every single nuclear charge in the world has its fingerprint, which allows its origin and trajectory to be traced in detail. My personal view is that this has prevented nuclear terrorism until now, notwithstanding the fact that Pakistan, Libya, the former states of the USSR and other nations have been leaking nuclear materials and knowlewdge for decades. But of course it may have been just luck...

My apologies, I'm getting my boogeymen mixed up. Iran supports Hezbollah, not Hamas, not that I'd care to be in the clutches of either group.

Iran, who's president (elected, albiet in a not very democractic way) said he wanted to destroy Israel and would prefer America not to exist, can't be allowed to have a nuclear bomb. Ignoring arguments over rights etc, no one in their right mind would allow a country like that to have the bomb.

Hopefully they will see sense, else the question is does Israel just nuke them or am I going to end up being conscripted to attack them?

On the subject of Iran's president: How much power does this guy really have? My impression has always been that the presidency has always had to answer to the theocracy. His predecessor didn't really have much say, I doubt that the current president is any more than a puppet, especially considering how he got the job in the first place. He talks a good game though.

Nukes are like becoming an adult. You finally have the money/power to do what you want, but your responsibilities and the consequences prevent you from doing these same things...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Iran in a treaty stated that in order to recieve aid and assistance in developing their nuclear energy that they would not use the gained knowledge to pursue nuclear weapons.

---

As said previously (and knowing your point before hand) the treaty was sentenced to death from the begining, just by being asimetrical. An unjust law shouldn't be respected, and the further generations shouldn't be paying with their economic prosperity for the mistakes of their predecessors.

You make good points Adrian, but why take the chance that the crazies running Iran don't calm down and actually start a nuclear war?

This chance is not insignificant (especially considering the Pres. of Iran's belief that he's some sort of religious messiah)*, and the results would be devastating.

Is it not prudent, then, to do all we can to prevent them from getting the bomb? No good can come of letting them get nuclear weapons capability, and they certainly have enough oil to provide power. Nor are there any enemies they need to defend against (arguing that they need to make WMDs to stop the US from invading to prevent them getting WMDs is silly. They could just not make nukes, and no one would bother them.) Their 'nuclear power' line is but a smokescreen for what they really want. Am I surprised that they want nuclear power? Not really, who doesn't, after all? But that doesn't mean we should let them get it.

Crazed Rabbit

EDIT: *Just a quick summary, he may not exactly think he's a messiah, just read the article.

I say no nukes for Iran. The reason that no nuclear holocausts have yet occurred has been because of the mutually assured destruction theory. Unfortunately, that concept only works if the political leaders of nuclear powers are rational and believe that the benefit of a nuclear war (wiping out the enemy) does not outweigh the cost (being wiped out).

This does not apply in a theocracy, especially an extremist one like Iran's. To Iran's leaders, the benefit of a nuclear exchange (wiping the Israelis off the map) might appear far greater than the cost (being sent to meet Allah earlier than originally scheduled). In fact, they might see it as a "win/win," given that matryrdom is held in such high regard by religious extremists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

(..) why take the chance that the crazies running Iran don't calm down and actually start a nuclear war? This chance is not insignificant considering the Pres. of Iran's belief that he's some sort of religious messiah

---

He is certainly a loose cannon, but so was Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee of India in 1998 - a man whose Hindu nationalist followers not only managed to look utterly ridiculous during their public fitness displays in khaki shorts and white singlets, but uttered some pretty apocalyptic nonsense about an upcoming 'reckoning' with Pakistan as well. In Pakistan similar cr@p was heard from the islamist parties and many mullahs.

In reality both nations took care to disperse both their nuclear decision-making powers and their actual nuclear arsenals among various institutions and bases, to establish checks and hotlines and to ask for international assistance. The Indian Army managed to retain a firm control over the whole arsenal and withstand any radical tendencies. Pakistan even enlisted United States help in securing its nuclear arsenal against a possible islamist overthrow of the government. Washington was only too happy to oblige...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Is it not prudent, then, to do all we can to prevent them from getting the bomb?

---

Oh yes, personally I feel we should do all we can - bar a new war. Make them pay their way (back) into the international community by sticking to their agreements, such as their NPT obligations which they flouted for 18 years. For precisely that reason, Russia should stop delivering fissile material to Iran as of today, China should stop buying Iranian oil, etcetera. Make 'em bleed every inch of the way.

Alas, such unity of purpose is a remote possibility. Russia and China consider Iran an unpalatable but indispensable ally in the region, much like the U.S. regards Pakistan or Uzbekistan as indispensable allies.

I am aware of your Indian-Pakistan comparison. But in the case of Iran, its leaders may not fear retaliation if they believed they could destory Israel before they could strike back. And even then, the MAD theory needs the participant's desire to live, which may not be as strong for the Iranian leadership if they think nukes are God's gift to Islam, and that they should perish in the flames of war if they can take out Israel. A kind of matyrdom, as hath been spoke of previously.

Quote:

---

Alas, such unity of purpose is a remote possibility. Russia and China consider Iran an unpalatable but indispensable ally in the region, much like the U.S. regards Pakistan or Uzbekistan as indispensable allies.

---

Sadly, less. But I think a small scale action, like bombing reactors, would be good and necessary to stop them.

Crazed Rabbit

Nuclear weapons could, in theory, give Iran extra leverage if it wanted to hold us hostage for oil. IE, we won't sell any oil unless x demands are made. Iran would essentially hold hostage any major city within striking distance - and who would sacrifice hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians for oil?

:help:

I'm not sure where I stand on this, other than Iran possessing nuclear weapons is not an ideal. What to do about it, I know not.

I tend to agree with Don Corleone and Seamus on this issue.

The greatest threat is not from national use of nuclear weapons, but from "extra-national" use, as Don put it.


The loss of a major Western City would be met with dancing in the streets by the middle eastern majority.

The Iranian President is right about one thing: There is a war between the West and radical Islam. The battleground is the psyche of the muslim male and the goal of the West is to impose tolerance on state-sponsored muslim extremism. The goal of radical Islam is unoppossed oppression, total obediance, and the spread of dictatorial theocracy throughout the world.


We must win their minds. However, this is a difficult process because it requires the destruction of institutional hatred, such as that espoused by Ayatollah Nutjob, as well as the imposition of democracy and individual liberty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

A kind of martyrdom, as hath been spoke of previously.

---

That kind of martyrdom is restricted to non-state actors who usually belong to small, socially and psychologically isolated groups. Ruling elites answer to the 'laws' of inertia, self-preservation and institutional cowardice. Those have saved mankind from nuclear winter many a time. I believe Israel should talk to Iran in the same way it has started talking to Turkey, Pakistan and other former adversaries. That will take time, some nerves, some imagination. Bombs won't stop any process of radicalisation in the Muslim world. I think that has been amply demonstrated in the neighbourhood recently.

Why do you think the onus is on Israel to talk to the Iranian government, in light of the recent slew of 'Iranian Diplomacy'?

Why do you seem to think that only the 'ruling elite' will have access to this capability, after Iran obtains it?

If we go back to the cold war.
and Americans persicuting comunists.

Russia and america had nukes.
Some pointing at eachother.
This created a cold war,

The russians devized A Huge oil tanker that would be floated out to see it would contain Enough explosive neucular waste To destroy all life on earth,

The idea being Sensors would be in russia,
and if neucliar fall out was detected
(to the russians meaning comunism would die "Not the people" but Comunsim)
The Ship would Detonate.

Thank fully, To my knowlage they never built this Ship.
And nukes were pointed away again.

Do we really want to risk Some 1 Actualy Builing this Ship of Death. just as a deterant?
I dont like the idea personally As Sensors OFTEN fail.

Suplying every 1 with nukes, is NOT a good idea.
Suplying ANY 1 with nukes is not a good idea.

One day there gonna manage to ruin this planet for ever.
And unfortunatly
I beleve its going to happen in my life time.

How safe would you have felt if it was Nazi's getting the bomb and they said that they will wipe out Israel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Why do you think the onus is on Israel to talk to the Iranian government, in light of the recent slew of 'Iranian Diplomacy'?

---

Why do you think Israel does business with Pakistan, as it has done with Saudi Arabia, Libya, Mandela's South Africa? Self-interest. Staying informed. Remaining on top of developments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Why do you seem to think that only the 'ruling elite' will have access to this capability, after Iran obtains it?

---

Because ruling elites want to rule, not die in a hell of their own inadvertent making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

How safe would you have felt if it was Nazi's getting the bomb and they said that they will wipe out Israel?

---

Just as safe, providing that the balance of power were similar to today's. Which it wasn't in the late 1930's, at least not in Europe. Iran risks total annihilation if it cooperates in the pursuit of a nuclear weapon by non-state actors.

If you contemplate military action to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, that is a dead end. You would have to start with Pakistan, then on to Iran.

When is it again that you are up for election, Papewaio? ~:)

Pakistan developed the bomb with their own scientists, that and they have a decent cricket team.

As for the Iranians they stopped Australia getting into the last Football (Soccer) World Cup. So they at least know how to play a civilised sport.

I actually feel safer with Iran getting the bomb then any of the 1930's powers in Europe (British, French and Soviets included) and a lot safer then North Korea who's leader may want to have the same kind of lasting fame as John Lennon's killer... someone willing to murder to keep their name(s) in the history book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Because ruling elites want to rule, not die in a hell of their own inadvertent making.

---

That assumes an ordinary, sane minded, person. But what sane person would blow themselves up on the back of a bus?

I know the theocrats of Iran are far removed from that, and would have their lessers blow themselves up. But what if they viewed the nuclear annihilation of their enemies as some sort of God-given duty, that only they should carry out, because of the great destruction it would accomplish?

Quote:

---

"Mahdaviat is a code for [Iran's Islamic] revolution, and is the spirit of the revolution," says the head of an institute dedicated to studying and speeding the Mahdi's appearance. "This kind of mentality makes you very strong," observes the political editor of Resalat newspaper, Amir Mohebian. "If I think the Mahdi will come in two, three, or four years, why should I be soft? Now is the time to stand strong, to be hard."

---

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Pakistan developed the bomb with their own scientists, that and they have a decent cricket team.

---

Actually Abdul Qadeer Khan learned just about all the tricks of his trade in The Netherlands, Germany and Belgium before he put them to use (and not very originally, say insiders and experts) in General Zia ul-Haq's backyard. Iran's scientists have probably contributed more to both the field of nuclear physics and the production of their 'own' bomb than Pakistan's.

The day I let Iran have a nuke is the day America sells them one becuase we have invented the death star!

But...you already have!

https://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y6...athstarwtc.jpg

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

stolen from this thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Actually Abdul Qadeer Khan learned just about all the tricks of his trade in The Netherlands, Germany and Belgium before he put them to use (and not very originally, say insiders and experts) in General Zia ul-Haq's backyard. Iran's scientists have probably contributed more to both the field of nuclear physics and the production of their 'own' bomb than Pakistan's.

---

The science side of making a bomb isn't that difficult, it is the refinemint of the Uranium (and the energy that some of these processes can take) that can be difficult... of course this is somewhat side stepped by using breeder reactors... once you have the initial feedstock you can create both weapon grade materials and have an energy surplus...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I know the theocrats of Iran are far removed from that, and would have their lessers blow themselves up. But what if they viewed the nuclear annihilation of their enemies as some sort of God-given duty, that only they should carry out, because of the great destruction it would accomplish?

---

Yes, what if? What if you bomb their nuclear installations and they manage to hide some Doomsday machine and explode it in Iraq, or Israel, or in the United States in retaliation? There is no fool-proof strategy of containment, is there?

My biggest worry for several years has been that some obscure, influential Saudi would use his wealth, diplomatic clout and connections in Saudi intelligence circles to procure a 'ready'-made' nuclear weapon from Khan and hand it to some real ideological monster. If you are looking for the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse, look no further than Saudi Arabia. That country has the most hard-core eschatological sects of the entire Muslim world. It also has some immensely rich, idiosyncratic royal family members who are able and possibly willing to provide them with the necessary means. The Saudis have co-financed all of Khan's projects, particularly when he was strapped for cash because of international (American) economic sanctions, and they used to have a lot of clout in Islamabad for that reason. Saudi royals were the only foreigners ever allowed to visit Khan's labs and witness his tests. The doctor has many personal friends in Ryad...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The science side of making a bomb isn't that difficult, it is the refinemint of the Uranium (and the energy that some of these processes can take) that can be difficult... of course this is somewhat side stepped by using breeder reactors... once you have the initial feedstock you can create both weapon grade materials and have an energy surplus...

---

Anyone can make a decent boeuf Bourguignon if and when he has the right cooking staff, the right ingredients and a proper mise-en-place. The art is in collecting the right ingredients, hiring the right staff and ensuring the proper mise-en-place at the right moment.

Those tricks Khan learned abroad, particularly the breeder technology -- which he could develop thanks to his former academic and industrial contacts in Western Europa and the United States. They kept providing him with blueprints, tools and resources well after his industrial espionage had become public knowledge (which was in the early 1980's, when he was sentenced in absentia to several years in prison in The Neds).

If you have the material you could clap two bricks of enriched uranium together and get a sustained reaction.

With the right geometric shapes you could clap the bricks to gether and go thermo.

The hard part isn't making a functional bomb. It is making a smaller one and getting the material for it.

Also if the people are only trying to make a short term bomb... ie they intend to use it soon, then a lot of the other design aspects would be easier... no need to figure out how long the weapon grade material stays at that level.

Good Discussion.

AdrianII:

Egads! I'd forgotten the stray members of the Sauds -- but the scenario you outline is all too plausible. This is precisely the kind of fear I have and why I feel action to limit nuclear proliferation may be necessary (regardless of its legitimacy). Ugly choices for ugly possibilities.

Don C:

You did not include the 1967 -- a.k.a. 6 Days -- conflict in the list of Israeli aggression. They had lots of credible evidence that the various powers were preparing to assault Israel, but they did, at least technically, strike first.

On your larger points, you and I are in close agreement.

If Canada put 18 divisions in Hamilton, Mexico put 23 in Mexicali and Montrety, our Navy reported that a combined Russian, French and Chinese fleet was approximately 10 miles from the mouth of the Chesapeake (the tidal basin that leads to Washington D.C.) and we had airspace violations from some unknown foe all across Florida, would we really be the agressors if we didn't wait for them to get their timing right?

Saying Israel was the agressor in the 6 Days War is like saying Poland started the fight with Germany in WWII. Come on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

If you have the material you could clap two bricks of enriched uranium together and get a sustained reaction.

---

Lol yeah.
and you d prolly get blined.
And youd die of radiation posioning in about 3 months after you did it lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Also if the people are only trying to make a short term bomb... ie they intend to use it soon, then a lot of the other design aspects would be easier... no need to figure out how long the weapon grade material stays at that level

---

Well seeing as necular material Has A half life.
Its never really a question of how long it will last.

if it takes 2 years for 1/2 the origional material to become depleated.
it will take a futher 2 years for the other 1/2 to become 1/2 stength

then a further 2 years for the remaining 1/4 to become 1/2 stength

and a futher 2 years for the remaning 1/8th to become 1/2 strength

And a further 2 years for the remaning 1/16th to become 1/2 strength.

wel u get it

1/32
1/64
1/128
1/265

the question is at which Fraction the Does the radiation become Non lethal.

it could be

1/2560

thats 1600 years.....
At a half life of 2 years,.
and most nucular material has a half life of Longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just A Girl

If we go back to the cold war.
and Americans persicuting comunists.

Russia and america had nukes.
Some pointing at eachother.
This created a cold war,

The russians devized A Huge oil tanker that would be floated out to see it would contain Enough explosive neucular waste To destroy all life on earth,

The idea being Sensors would be in russia,
and if neucliar fall out was detected
(to the russians meaning comunism would die "Not the people" but Comunsim)
The Ship would Detonate.

Thank fully, To my knowlage they never built this Ship.
And nukes were pointed away again.

Do we really want to risk Some 1 Actualy Builing this Ship of Death. just as a deterant?
I dont like the idea personally As Sensors OFTEN fail.

Suplying every 1 with nukes, is NOT a good idea.
Suplying ANY 1 with nukes is not a good idea.

One day there gonna manage to ruin this planet for ever.
And unfortunatly
I beleve its going to happen in my life time.

---

Is this a poem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Is this a poem?

---

Lol no..

Its just how i Write.
sometimes it looks wrong..
Sometimes it looks right.

Im noot the kind of person to start a fight
over a comment Tht brings
my writing style to light.

Some times it works.
sometimes it wont
Sometimes i make a poem
Some times I dont.

Answers ya question?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just A Girl

Lol no..

Its just how i Write.
sometimes it looks wrong..
Sometimes it looks right.

Im noot the kind of person to start a fight
over a comment Tht brings
my writing style to light.

Some times it works.
sometimes it wont
Sometimes i make a poem
Some times I dont.

Answers ya question?

---

I like a girl
who isnt a girl
when I see her schlong
I want to hurl

Shambles' his name
yep that's his name
His sister uses his account sometimes
and confuses the hell out of everyone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

I like a girl
who isnt a girl
when I see her schlong
I want to hurl

Shambles' his name
yep that's his name
His sister uses his account sometimes
and confuses the hell out of everyone

---

you can do better than that

get this thread back on topic or bye bye

It's difficult to keep Israel out of this discussion as you mentioned, because the security of Israel is tied to the nuclear capabilities of Iran. Period.

A nuclear empowered Iran is a "clear and present dnager" to the the existence of Israel. I think that Crazed Rabbit is right. Iran may be willing to commit a self-sacrifice in order to destroy Israel. This is a somewhat unique challenge when compared against more rational nations which seek self-preservation.

Adrian II, true as it may be that the leaders of Iran are cowards, it is contendable as to the motivation of the leadership there.

...Is inevitable!

The path to war is being lit by Iran itself.

Article showing similarities between Iraq and Iran.

Quote:

---

Sounds familiar?
IRAQ

WMD

Signatory of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty accused of holding weapons of mass destruction including a nuclear arms programme. UN weapons inspectors were expelled from the country on the eve of the 2003 war.

CONCEALMENT

Confirmed to UN in 1995 that it had a clandestine nuclear weapons scheme following revelations by Saddam Hussein's brother-in-law who had defected. Before 2003 invasion, regime was accused of concealing WMD from UN inspectors.

MISCALCULATION

Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, 5 March 2003: "It serves the interest of no one for Saddam to miscalculate. It doesn't serve the interest of the United States or the world or Iraq for Saddam to miscalculate our intention or our willingness to act."

SECURITY COUNCIL

November 2002: Iraq threatened with military action unless it co-operates with UN inspectors. US leads invasion without Security Council backing.

IRAN

WMD

Signatory of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty accused of working on nuclear weapons programme. UN weapons inspectors are at work in the country.

CONCEALMENT

Confirmed to UN in 2002 that it had a clandestine nuclear programme after revelations by Iranian dissidents. Iran was accused by Britain, France and Germany yesterday of "concealment and deception".

MISCALCULATION

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 11 January, 2006: "The Iranian regime has made a serious miscalculation.If negotiations have run their course and Iran is not going to negotiate in good faith, then there's no other option but to refer the matter to the Security Council."

SECURITY COUNCIL

12 January 2006: Britain, France and Germany call for Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. Failure to reach agreement could give US hawks - and Israel - an excuse for unilateral military action.

---

I don't agree with the left-leaning statement of U.S. and Israeli "excuse for military action" since peace and cooperation is always preferable to war, even by us hawks. The article still has some valid points.


I know we have a topic on Iran already, but the purpose of this thread is to discuss the very real possibility of war, the process of getting to that point, who the major players will be, the regional and global implications, etc.re:conflict.


With the Israeli political scene a mess, will the acting PM take the necessary action when Iran's capabilities become clear? Will Israel set the stage by bombing Iran as they have done in the past when Iran sought nuclear capabilities? Clearly, the answer is yes. But what will the reaction of Iran be? Will they make the mistake of retaliating against Israel? Let's hope not, because then the poor Iranians will suffer a horrible fate thanks to their own radical leadership.

What say you, oh Orgahs?

reading the news overt the past few weeks.......
.....the similarities were starting to get a little disturbing anyway.

I heard that Russia is now putting pressure on Iran too. In fact I've got the impression that some of the waverers on Iraq are sliding into place in the "quit it Iran" group.

About a week after they Atacked iraq.
They were saying They should have attacked Iran,
Then that went all quiet.

It seems as though its re emerging....

What was it nostradamus said that would destroy the world around about now?
A great ball of fire from the east wasnt it?

Good.
Bout damn time this planet was given back to the animals :smile:

Nostradomus is an idiot. Focus. This is gonna happen. I just hope the U.S. is smart enought to let Europe lead in some areas on this (even though France and Germany would rather let Iran have the bomb, those weak-kneed cowards).

About bloody time, I cannot stand that mountaingoat.

Has the US got the resources to invade and subdue Iran as well as maintaining its presence in Iraq? Regardless of whether an attack would be a good thing, can you actually do it?

I have previously been cheerleader in chief for the Iranians (at least amongst non-Iranian posters) but I have to say my opinions have changed. Ahmadinejad is plainly very bad news indeed and my hopes for gradual modernisation have been rather dashed. Under no circumstances should this regime be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

Once again its ordinary Iranians who get the **** end of the stick though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Once again its ordinary Iranians who get the **** end of the stick though.

---

One could say that they elected him. But I think they just voted against the corruption. The people of Iran should keep that backward goat in check, they must know they will be attacked eventually. All out war isn't really necesary, just shake up the infrastructure a bit and wait for the next elections, I doubt he will be re-elected.

There's not going to be any war in Iran. My guess is that much like North Korea, this is a desparate attempt by Iran to force the rest of the world, the US in particular, to normalize relations and end all trade restrictions.

If we didn't invade Pakistan in 1997/1998, we're not going to invade anybody. And the rest of Europe wouldn't invade anyone without the US doing the majority of the bleeding.

Iran knows they wouldn't last 5 minutes after a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Heck, we have submarines in the Persian gulf. There's a distinct possibility after they opened their silo doors we could bomb the missles in the silos, before they could launch. There's a window during the launch sequence where it's clear to anyone watching what you're doing but the missile isn't ready to go. The only real danger here is Iran sneaking a small bomb or a dirty bomb to Hezbollah or somebody like that. Even that is an unlikely (though frightening) scenario.

Wow, and I thought with Europe's superior diplomatic skills they would disarm the Iranians and make them reject extreme Islam and maybe even get them to pick little flowers and be sweet to puppy dogs. I'm just shocked. ~;)

Well you know what I say,
And if you dont... Your about to.

"give them all swords and pikes an armour. Stick there pm on a horse leading the charge. And let em fight it out"

you can throw in tony blair and Bush 2 for good measures if you like,

Iran announced today that if this matter gets referred to the Security Council (regardless of what the Security Council decides) all IAEA inspectors will be expelled. I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure Iran is in violation of the non-proliferation treaty and by it's charter, the IAEA is required to refer the matter to the Security Council.

Anyone care to lay odds which side caves first? My money is on the IAEA issuing a statement that Iran's program is for peaceful research only and needs no further inspections. Point, Iran.

Looks to me Like Iran wants a war,
Big old fire ball from the east Here we come!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Anyone care to lay odds which side caves first? My money is on the IAEA issuing a statement that Iran's program is for peaceful research only and needs no further inspections. Point, Iran.

---

No way. Iran has lost all grounds for negotiations now that it that it gets from Russia no love. And Israel will never accept a nuclair Iran, and I don't blaim them given the statements that backward mountaingoat has made about them having to do the die thing.

and beyond reason,

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...madinezhad.jpg

Don't you want to rip of that beard from his neck???

I do, but you are seriously overestimating international support for any sort of action against Iran. Russia may be making noises right now, but push comes to shove and they'll block any sanctions. China is held hostage by their oil needs. And there's no way France and Germany will ever admit that diplomacy isn't working. A lot will be said and done, but in the end, an awful lot more will be said then done.

Call me pessimistic,but i think Iran is going to get its Nuke.There has been half of an year now lots of talk about Irans nuclear program.If west should invade Iran,I ask with what troops?US troops are already overstretched in Iraq.Or should the West Nuke them?Incase Iran should be Nuked,should Pakistan also be nuked for possessing Nuclear weapons? I think this is going to be lots of talk and less action.In the end of the day Iran will be the next Nuclear power in mid East no matter if we like it or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Egads! I'd forgotten the stray members of the Sauds -- but the scenario you outline is all too plausible. This is precisely the kind of fear I have and why I feel action to limit nuclear proliferation may be necessary (regardless of its legitimacy). Ugly choices for ugly possibilities.

---

The issue of the non-state or 'rogue' element has worried strategists from the very beginning of the nuclear age. Not because such rogue elements are by definition irrational. On the contrary, they demonstrate a major weakness of classic nuclear thinking.

Classic nuclear thinking has it that 'rational' leaders and regimes use nuclear arms only to deter, not to attack or avenge. I put 'rational' in inverted commas because in the context of nuclear strategy, some axioms are not really self-evident.

For instance it can be argued that any calculations based on imponderables like 'freedom', 'credible deterrence' and 'annihilation of mankind' are inherently irrational. And what deters one person or government might not deter another. In the eyes of a devoted Communist the future of mankind is all-important; to a Zen Buddhist it doesn't mean a thing. Ruling elites miscalculate. Cultural barriers block adequate communication of threats and commitments.

Hence paradoxes abound in the realm of deterrence. In the 1950's and 1960's the eternally convulsive and seemingly erratic leadership of the Peoples' Republic of China was considered an example of 'diminished deterrence'; they apparently didn't mind losing a few million or even a hundred million lives to obtain essentially ideological foreign policy goals. The Chinese proudly lived up to this reputation, for instance through the 'human wave' tactics in Korea. On closer inspection (as Kissinger and Nixon well understood) the Chinese policy goals were actually classic geostrategic goals disguised in ideology, and their apparently irrational mass tactics were a 'rational' way to deter opponents. Their mass waves were the poor man's nuke.

To overcome this inherent weakness in nuclear thinking, the French theorist Raymond Aron emphasised the need for empirical studies. He argued against game theory and other general or abstract theories of deterrence: 'It is always a case of knowing who can deter whom, from what, in what circumstances, and by what means.'

Even with the firmly established nuclear doctrines and protocols of the Cold War, there was always a chance that some rogue General would not be deterred and start a nuclear war of his own, based on a 'rational' assumption that the 'surviving' nation or political community would ensure a better future for mankind. Nowadays, some rogue Mullah may take the same road or even opt for a one-way ticket to Paradise.

Yet I think Aron would oppose your axiom that the risk of proliferation outweighs the risk of military prevention. He would speak in terms of calculated, calculable and incalculable risks. I am not Aron and I have a more philosophical approach. Because of the peculiar nature of this larger risk, I use the parable of the 'Fifth Horseman'.

The Fifth Horseman is Hades or Hell. Most importantly, he operates in the shadow of the Fourth Horseman whose name is Death. There has been a common belief since the Reformation that you can not defend against things that you are unable to observe with your senses. The Fifth Horseman operates on this unseen plane. He rides on your back, as it were. You think you can fight him by bombing Tehran, only to discover that he is hiding in Ryad. Or in Islamabad. Or in Washington itself. The more you sow death in the Muslim world in a quest to eradicate nuclear proliferation, the more he will reap his rewards in the form of humiliated and frustrated Muslims with access to lethal knowledge and resources.

You can never fight the Fifth Horseman in hand-to-hand combat. He is the hand. He rides on the back of your tanks, he descends victorously in the wake of every smart bomb you can drop. For every dead Muslim, he enlists a Mohammed Bouyeri (Van Gogh's killer) or a John Walker Lindh in your own country. The only way you can fight him is by lifting the shadow of Death from the Muslim world.

*cackles, throws shaman bones in the air*

You know your europe Don :laugh4: But I think Iran is really held hostage with their oil, their entire economy depends on it, it will keep flowing whatever happens. I doubt that goat will get to respect his 78 virgins when he lets his people starve just because of his flagburning hobby. He knows he's cornered, he will give in. If he doesn't it would be extremily stupid, not that I don't think he is not stupid, but there have to be a few smart people around him because that goat got elected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

You know your europe Don :laugh4: But I think Iran is really held hostage with their oil, their entire economy depends on it, it will keep flowing whatever happens. I doubt that goat will get to respect his 78 virgins when he lets his people starve just because of his flagburning hobby. He knows he's cornered, he will give in. If he doesn't it would be extremily stupid, not that I don't think he is not stupid, but there have to be a few smart people around him because that goat got elected.

---

Actually he'll just do what Kim Jung Ill has done. Let the people suffer while he and a relative few will live in opulance while getting aide from the UN or some other international charity that blindly gives money, food, and supplies to despots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

One could say that they elected him. But I think they just voted against the corruption.

---

There's no way he was elected under even remotely fair circumstances. It was merely a choice between candidates the mullahs allowed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Iran knows they wouldn't last 5 minutes after a pre-emptive nuclear strike. The only real danger here is Iran sneaking a small bomb or a dirty bomb to Hezbollah or somebody like that. Even that is an unlikely (though frightening) scenario.

---

Why would they do that? Someone who can only field a few nukes isn't going to waste them on someone far away. They'll keep the things as insurance in case some powerful nation tries a conventional attack against them. A strategically placed warhead could knock out large portions of an enemy massed for invasion.

Everybody is missing the obvious implications here. We all agree that previous presidents of Iran have been subservient to the will of the mullahs that run the Sharia courts, right? How can this guy be continually making statements and enacting policies that they aren't in line with... I think he's just a mouthpiece (one that happens to agree) but I think his statements and actions signal a willingness by the theocracy as a whole to 1) proceed towards gaining nuclear weapons 2) continuing to provoke agression against Israel (though I doubt they'll use their newly developed nuclear weapons to do this) 3) tell anybody, the US included, to go screw if they don't like it.

Once you join the nuclear club, you can get away with a lot more than you used to be able to (hello, Tibet anybody?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

Why would they do that? Someone who can only field a few nukes isn't going to waste them on someone far away. They'll keep the things as insurance in case some powerful nation tries a conventional attack against them. A strategically placed warhead could knock out large portions of an enemy massed for invasion.

---

The Iranian theocracy's stated goal is to implement the theocracy, their Islamic republic governed by Sharia, across the globe. They have called for the destruction of Israel and the United States consistently since 1979. They know if they tried to bomb the US, maybe everyone else would join against them, but if some hitherto unknown terrorist cell let a few small nukes off in New York, Chicago & LA, they have plausible deniability. And I honestly don't think anyone, other than the US and it's inner circle of closest friends (UK, Israel, Taiwan and maybe Australia and Canada) would really push the issue. I can see Chirac right now: "We feel terrible for the tragedy that has befallen our American friends, but alas, it was nobody. A small group acting on their own."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Once you join the nuclear club, you can get away with a lot more than you used to be able to (hello, Tibet anybody?)

---

Well that is the point ;) Why allow that to happen?

We have a phat thread going on the subject. Why open another and repeat the same posts as if nothing happened?

Can't be bothered. :juggle2:

The world would be such a better place if ultimate power was handed over to me...

Quote:

---

The world would be such a better place if ultimate power was handed over to me...

---

Nah,
Your not to be trusted...

Give me the nukes!

Threads merged as the discussion is overlapping