NationStates Jolt Archive

Before you jump the gun and say "No filthy muslims should have the bomb!!!" let me point out to you a few things.

Israel, a nation that does not get along with Iran (and vice versa), most likely has Nuclear Capabilities and perhaps Chemical and Biological Weapons.

Relevant Wikipage bellow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Also I want to ask, What right does the US and Europe who have spent the last century stockpiling WMD to tell other countries that they do not have the right to WMD to protect themselves (which is the excuse the US gives whenever someone wants to dismantle our WMD's, "We have to protect ourselves").

Well, Iran has the right to protect itself, so I ask of all of you, what right does the US and Europe have to tell Iran that they do not deserve WMD?

Poll forthcomming.

I assume the MAD principle would still apply, so it doesn't matter if they get it.

You're assuming an idealised, moral perspective to international politics that isn't yet justified.

Iran is, at present, too unstable in its aims, politics, and ideology to allow the West the _luxury_ of letting a foreign nation develop as it pleases. That's the correct, moral thing for us to do, I agree, but it's totally impractical, insanely shortsighted, and downright daft in context.

You want Iran to get the bomb? Go right ahead. But if it bites you in the ass later, I'm going to point and laugh and say "I told you so!"

Elgesh']You're assuming an idealised, moral perspective to international politics that isn't yet justified.

Iran is, at present, too unstable in its aims, politics, and ideology to allow the West the _luxury_ of letting a foreign nation develop as it pleases. That's the correct, moral thing for us to do, I agree, but it's totally impractical, insanely shortsighted, and downright daft in context.

The current mess in the Middle East is because we keep meddling.

Kids never grow up if you stand over them with a stick every second of the day, they just end up as sociopaths.

No one should have "the bomb." However, that would be like trying to force the genie back into the bottle. Keeping atomic ( and chemical and biological ) weapons out of the hands of those who feel they can use them with impunity is vital. Ergo, Iran should not be allowed to join the "nuclear club." Nor should North Korea, Indonesia, Syria, or for that matter, Mauritania!

The current mess in the Middle East is because we keep meddling.

Kids never grow up if you stand over them with a stick every second of the day, they just end up as sociopaths.

The 'current' mess? I think it's been going on a while... :p

I don't think much of your analogy, comparing countries, cultures, or peoples to children; tres British Empire-ish. Children don't have much of a say in the politics of any country (though it might be better if they did). To use your analogy, though, do you advocate giving a rowdy, aggressive child a gun to take to school because he's been having trouble with that other kid?

No one should have "the bomb." However, that would be like trying to force the genie back into the bottle. Keeping atomic ( and chemical and biological ) weapons out of the hands of those who feel they can use them with impunity is vital. Ergo, Iran should not be allowed to join the "nuclear club." Nor should North Korea, Indonesia, Syria, or for that matter, Mauritania!

I'm sick of your constant Mauritania bashing!

Iran is an unstable and virulently fundamentalist state that openly advocates the destruction of Israel and the West. That's why we aren't letting them get the bomb. It's just too dangerous, and it doesn't seem improbable that Iran would use them if they had the chance.

Iran is an unstable and virulently fundamentalist state that openly advocates the destruction of Israel and the West. That's why we aren't letting them get the bomb. It's just too dangerous, and it doesn't seem improbable that Iran would use them if they had the chance.
I agree with you, but be prepared for alot of people to bash your post. I don't trust MAD if one of the parties involved embraces a religion that says they will go to paradise if they die fighting their enemies.

I agree with you, but be prepared for alot of people to bash your post. I don't trust MAD if one of the parties involved embraces a religion that says they will go to paradise if they die fighting their enemies.

As an aside, that has always made me wonder: Why not have fourty-two virgins now rather than when you've blown off your own penis?

Must everyone be reminded that the only nation to show the irresponsibility and lack of restraint to actually use nukes to kill people has been the US. So really we don't have much in the way of talking points.

Let us not forget Iran protests that it doesn't want a nuclear bomb but rather a nuclear plant which supplies energy to its citizens. If that's the true case, then the West should assist Iran while holding Iran to its promise at the same time. There are nations around Iran that posses nuclear arsenals which leaves Iran (in every aspect) vulnerable. In Iraq, American troops are there, and in Afghanistan there are also American troops and NATO. How would America feel if its distant foe's troops were in Canada and Mexico in the pretext of bringing stability? While Americans are struggling (militarily and politically) in Iraq, Bush and his cronies are making enemies with Iraq's neighbours (Iran and Syria), I ask you, is that wise?

Use the A-bomb and get Japan to surrender, or launch the massive invasion of Japan that was going to kill lots more people. Oh, and I believe firebombing killed more people than the a-bombs.

Must everyone be reminded that the only one nation to show the irresponsibility and lack of restraint to actually use nukes to kill people has been the US. So really we don't have much in the way of talking points.

Aside from the fact that it was 60 years ago and was necessary to defeat Japan without a bloody land war, the reason why no one else has used nuclear weapons was because we had used them and showed the world their destructive capability.

i think we're long past the question of if they "should" have them and are about to get to "how long til they use them?"

Who are the 6 morons who voted to give the bomb to a country that is so oppressive, hostile, and fundamenatalist.

First on iran's drawing baord: nuke israel. Sure, they whould be reatliated against in turn, but that won't restore the lives of those lost in the spirit of "sharing" nuclear bombs.

Aside from the fact that it was 60 years ago and was necessary to defeat Japan without a bloody land war, the reason why no one else has used nuclear weapons was because we had used them and showed the world their destructive capability.

Sixty years isn't actually all that long, you know. You can't just say 'it was a long time ago, we know better now', because if that's the case, why do you still have so many? You only need to destroy the world once over.

While Americans are struggling (militarily and politically) in Iraq, Bush and his cronies are making enemies with Iraq's neighbours (Iran and Syria), I ask you, is that wise?

and i ask you..... has Bush done anything wise?

Elgesh'] giving a rowdy, aggressive child a gun to take to school because he's been having trouble with that other kid?
but the other kid has a bigger gun, and all the other kids friends have guns..

The whole idea that Iran only wants a peaceful nuclear power program is BS. They have several weapons related sites and have barred the IAEA from inspecting any of them. Furthermore, they don't need nuclear power, as it's far more economical to just use that ocean of oil they're floating on.

Sixty years isn't actually all that long, you know. You can't just say 'it was a long time ago, we know better now', because if that's the case, why do you still have so many? You only need to destroy the world once over.

That was the magic of the Cold War; more nukes meant we were better than the USSR and could do more damage.:rolleyes:

Of course, the real reason was probably economic; we made the USSR divert a lot of money and technology to those weapons, and evenutally the cost of maintaining the infrastructure became a burden that helped drag their economy down.

However, an increasingly large number of our nuclear weapons are becoming unoperational, as radioactive decay causes them to expand and damage components. We've got a lot, but a lot of them don't work as well or at all. The US isn't producing plutonium anymore either.

Sixty years isn't actually all that long, you know. You can't just say 'it was a long time ago, we know better now', because if that's the case, why do you still have so many? You only need to destroy the world once over.

Actually, its a funny story, having "just enough weapons to kill everyone on the planet" wont cut it. You need to have enough nukes to kill them SEVERAL times over. Why? Nuclear Weapons are not perfect. There are plenty of things that can go wrong. The bomb could fail to detonate, the silo door could fail to open, the missile could be destroyed(in flight or while in silo), etc. etc.

Anyways, Iran should NOT have the bomb! They would probably give it to Hez-whats-its-name or, even worse, Al-Queda!

They ought to have it, really. On an all-or-none-everyone-has-the-same-right principle. But really no-one should have it.

Sixty years isn't actually all that long, you know. You can't just say 'it was a long time ago, we know better now', because if that's the case, why do you still have so many? You only need to destroy the world once over.Nearly half of them are not useable.

Anyways, Iran should NOT have the bomb! They would probably give it to Hez-whats-its-name or, even worse, Al-Queda!

Why does everyone assume that Iran is just itching to give the US a reason to fuck them up?

That was the magic of the Cold War; more nukes meant we were better than the USSR and could do more damage.:rolleyes:

'We can destroy the whole world three more times than you! Ha!'

-- yeah, I understand the theory, I just think it was ridiculous. But then, superpowers at play often are...

Of course, the real reason was probably economic; we made the USSR divert a lot of money and technology to those weapons, and evenutally the cost of maintaining the infrastructure became a burden that helped drag their economy down.

Interesting interpretation. Presumably the same theory can be applied to the space programs (because, let's face it, why go to the moon when you can only stay a couple of days? Science, yes, but when have military superpowers been interested in abstract science?)

However, an increasingly large number of our nuclear weapons are becoming unoperational, as radioactive decay causes them to expand and damage components. We've got a lot, but a lot of them don't work as well or at all. The US isn't producing plutonium anymore either.

And entropy triumphs at last as all the nuclear weapons of the world turn, slowly but surely, into inert lumps of lead.

Why does everyone assume that Iran is just itching to give the US a reason to fuck them up?

Well, they already tried once with that hostage thing...but I don't think the two are quite on the same level.

I'm sick of your constant Mauritania bashing!
TOUGH! Live with it! :D

but the other kid has a bigger gun, and all the other kids friends have guns..

True, that certainly explains "why it makes _sense_ for Iran to try and get the bomb".

I'm not arguing morally here, I'm saying that in the terrible terms of realpolitik, we cannot afford the luxery of allowing nuculer proliferationpurely on the basis that a country has the right to self determination; particularly not when it's a country in a position/context like Iran's. Sometimes you really can't afford to do what's morally right, you have to be realistic.

Must everyone be reminded that the only nation to show the irresponsibility and lack of restraint to actually use nukes to kill people has been the US. So really we don't have much in the way of talking points.
Apparently everybody does need to be reminded that many of the Japanese generals were considering "national suicide" by sending every man woman and child to attack any invading American forces. Apparently nobody remembers that many Japanese civilians, including kids, were given quick "training" and cheap weapons to help kill any Americans who invaded the home islands. How many Japanese civilians would have died in the event of an invasion? More than those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Oh, and the bombings brought a quick end to the war which may have prevented the Japanese implementation of biological warfare against the US mainland.

http://www.project1947.com/gfb/fugo.htm

Actually, its a funny story, having "just enough weapons to kill everyone on the planet" wont cut it. You need to have enough nukes to kill them SEVERAL times over. Why? Nuclear Weapons are not perfect. There are plenty of things that can go wrong. The bomb could fail to detonate, the silo door could fail to open, the missile could be destroyed(in flight or while in silo), etc. etc.

But then, two thirds of the planet are water, and you probably wouldn't be declaring war on the whole world (and if you are, you're doing something wrong). My point being that yes, you'd need a backup (if you plan to use nuclear weapons), but you've already /got/ one.

That was the magic of the Cold War; more nukes meant we were better than the USSR and could do more damage.:rolleyes:

Of course, the real reason was probably economic; we made the USSR divert a lot of money and technology to those weapons, and evenutally the cost of maintaining the infrastructure became a burden that helped drag their economy down.

However, an increasingly large number of our nuclear weapons are becoming unoperational, as radioactive decay causes them to expand and damage components. We've got a lot, but a lot of them don't work as well or at all. The US isn't producing plutonium anymore either.
I thought more nukes meant that in the case of many of them being wiped out in a Soviet first strike we would still have enough remaining to ensure MAD.

'We can destroy the whole world three more times than you! Ha!'

-- yeah, I understand the theory, I just think it was ridiculous. But then, superpowers at play often are...

Biological weapons were a lot worse. At least a nuclear accident could be easily contained, but a biological one could go worldwide.


Interesting interpretation. Presumably the same theory can be applied to the space programs (because, let's face it, why go to the moon when you can only stay a couple of days? Science, yes, but when have military superpowers been interested in abstract science?)

The entire arms and technology race was an economic battle. The space race both cost the USSR money and was an attempt to gain the confidence edge over them, which was faltering due to the strong growth and technological prowess of the USSR in the 1960's.

And entropy triumphs at last as all the nuclear weapons of the world turn, slowly but surely, into inert lumps of lead.

I suppose it's a fitting end. I'd rather them become lead than be used any day.

I thought more nukes meant that in the case of many of them being wiped out in a Soviet first strike we would still have enough remaining to ensure MAD.

Yes and no. Yes, because we needed backup weapons in the event of a first strike, but no because:

There were large numbers of outdated missles kept in place to serve as propaganda and to intimidate the USSR even though they were more or less useless in the event of nuclear war. We also produced more to drain the USSR of its remaining economic strength and to keep up the arms race in order to defeat them; that's why Reagan continued nuclear arms production even though the USSR wasn't really capable of truly competing anymore with the US militarily.

Also I want to ask, What right does the US and Europe who have spent the last century stockpiling WMD to tell other countries that they do not have the right to WMD to protect themselves (which is the excuse the US gives whenever someone wants to dismantle our WMD's, "We have to protect ourselves").

Well, Iran has the right to protect itself, so I ask of all of you, what right does the US and Europe have to tell Iran that they do not deserve WMD?

The US had the chance to bomb the world into submission at the end of World War II, but wisely restrained itself. Iranian leaders have said, literally, "Death to Israel, Death to the US" Why gamble with those odds?

If India and Pakistan and the US and France and Britain and Israel and Russia and China and North Korea can have them, so can Iran. I've nothing to fear from Iran that I don't from China or the US or Pakistan.

Biological weapons were a lot worse. At least a nuclear accident could be easily contained, but a biological one could go worldwide.

Well, I suppose 'easily contained' is relative - the effects of a nuclear reactor not even exploding in Russia spread at least to Britain (not pronounced effects, but there was a lot of panic at the time). In the highly destructive sense, though, you're probably right.

The entire arms and technology race was an economic battle. The space race both cost the USSR money and was an attempt to gain the confidence edge over them, which was faltering due to the strong growth and technological prowess of the USSR in the 1960's.

Running as fast as you can to stay in the same place, 'not dead' - amazing how that works in exactly the same way as in unaltered nature.

I suppose it's a fitting end. I'd rather them become lead than be used any day.

'course, now I'm envisaging a war in the far future where they finally unleash the deadly nuclear weapons, long held in storage, and... end up giving their opponents mild cases of lead poisoning.

GENERAL 1: Well... maybe it's a very /slow/ mushroom cloud?

GENERAL 2: I think I can see a mushroom cloud now!

GENERAL 1: ... no, that's just a normal mushroom.

GENERAL 2: Oh.

The US had the chance to bomb the world into submission at the end of World War II, but wisely restrained itself.

'Let's not nuke the world' isn't wisdom, it's common sense.

Why does everyone assume that Iran is just itching to give the US a reason to fuck them up?

That's a good question. Seems to me like they've appeased the US and UN just enough to keep us off their backs so they can get the weapon. My trouble with them having it is that while our government really couldn't get away with using it again and retain its present form, their's most likely could...

Apparently everybody does need to be reminded that many of the Japanese generals were considering "national suicide" by sending every man woman and child to attack any invading American forces. Apparently nobody remembers that many Japanese civilians, including kids, were given quick "training" and cheap weapons to help kill any Americans who invaded the home islands. How many Japanese civilians would have died in the event of an invasion? More than those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Oh, and the bombings brought a quick end to the war which may have prevented the Japanese implementation of biological warfare against the US mainland.

http://www.project1947.com/gfb/fugo.htm

I'm not interested in what excuses we had for using nukes. The original assertion is no less valid. The US is the only nation to have EVER used nuclear weapons to kill civilians, and still has the largest stockpiles in the world. That's why nobody listens to us when we try to call out regimes like Iran.

And just as an fyi, every "would of", "could of", "might of" you tack onto an argument diminishes that argument's strength. I'm sure you knew that.

I'm not interested in what excuses we had for using nukes. The original assertion is no less valid. The US is the only nation to have EVER used nuclear weapons to kill civilians, and still has the largest stockpiles in the world. That's why nobody listens to us when we try to call out regimes like Iran.

And just as an fyi, every "would of", "could of", "might of" you tack onto an argument diminishes that argument's strength. I'm sure you knew that.It does make it less valid because the intent of the statment is to paint the US as evil bloodthirsty monsters for using nuclear weapons, despite the fact that it saved lives on both sides. And the US doesn't have the laregest nuclear stockpile.

I'm not interested in what excuses we had for using nukes. The original assertion is no less valid. The US is the only nation to have EVER used nuclear weapons to kill civilians, and still has the largest stockpiles in the world. That's why nobody listens to us when we try to call out regimes like Iran.

And just as an fyi, every "would of", "could of", "might of" you tack onto an argument diminishes that argument's strength. I'm sure you knew that.
I see. You're not interested in the whole story, just the part that justifies your bias agains my country. Well, there's no arguing with a sick mind.

Must everyone be reminded that the only nation to show the irresponsibility and lack of restraint to actually use nukes to kill people has been the US. So really we don't have much in the way of talking points.

so true


if Iran want to have nukes, then so be it
And Israels got nukes, so

Elgesh']You're assuming an idealised, moral perspective to international politics that isn't yet justified.

Iran is, at present, too unstable in its aims, politics, and ideology to allow the West the _luxury_ of letting a foreign nation develop as it pleases. That's the correct, moral thing for us to do, I agree, but it's totally impractical, insanely shortsighted, and downright daft in context.

I am afraid I must agree. However the same sentiments could equally be applied to virtually any country, including the United Kingdom, the United States and Tim-buk-too. Multilateralism is what we need. And before anyone accuses me of being soft, I was a serving member of Her Majesty's Armed forces for more than 20 years, and I have seen what these terrible weapons can do.

If India and Pakistan and the US and France and Britain and Israel and Russia and China and North Korea can have them, so can Iran. I've nothing to fear from Iran that I don't from China ... the US ....
http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/4572/smileytroutsmack0cl.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Meh. If Iran has nukes they wont use them.

Why?

Simple. While the Mullahs preach "Kill all enemies of Islam" You'll notice it's thnot them who blow themselves up. Indeed they live quite comfortable lives. It the old story of leading from behind. They will preach death, but they wont risk their own lives in doing it.

I see. You're not interested in the whole story, just the part that justifies your bias agains my country. Well, there's no arguing with a sick mind.

Your country? Did you not notice my use of "we" in reference to the US? And please lets try to tone down the petty insults. Most of us on here are adults.

so true


if Iran want to have nukes, then so be it
And Israels got nukes, so
How many times has Israel been attacked by it's neighbors?
Is Israel really going to use up it's deterrant in a first strike and end up outnumbered against it's enemies?
Iran, however, wants to "wipe Israel off the map", embraces the idea that those killed in war against "enemies of Islam" will go to paradise, and is apparently led by someone a little crazier than bush at the moment.

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/4572/smileytroutsmack0cl.gif

The US has used them before and has been very belligerent in its spoken intention to use them when the interest befalls them since. I have not forgotten the Cold War, nor the reservations aimed to assuming the right to use them "pre-emptively" that have come during this very decade.

You as a USian may have nothing to fear from US nuclear weapons. I as a non-USian do.

I believe that any sovereign nation has the right to defend itself in any way it sees fit. That said, I hope the western world defends itself against Iran by sanctioning it into oblivion and, if that fails, bombing the nuclear sites. So you see, not all of us who voted for the top option are completely naive ;)

Your country? Did you not notice my use of "we" in reference to the US? And please lets try to tone down the petty insults. Most of us on here are adults.
1) No I didn't notice.

2) That doesn't make it right for you to cherrypick facts without including the whole context just so they'll support your point. The context can radically alter the relevence of a fact.

3) Cut me some slack. I'm only thirteen years old. Or maybe I'm older?

4) It's an expression I picked up from one of my former employers. He used it to end many conversations with me. I never took offense.

I'm not worried about Iran nuking anyone but I am worried that one of their bombs will go 'missing' and several million dollars will apear in their national budget.

I'm not worried about Iran nuking anyone but I am worried that one of their bombs will go 'missing' and several million dollars will apear in their national budget.

That would be notable, especially since Iran's currency is the Rial.

You as a USian may have nothing to fear from US nuclear weapons. I as a non-USian do.

Unless you're in China don't worry. And American sounds a lot better than USian. The rest of America can call themselves Americans if the really want to. We're not going to stop them.

The US has used them before and has been very belligerent in its spoken intention to use them when the interest befalls them since. I have not forgotten the Cold War, nor the reservations aimed to assuming the right to use them "pre-emptively" that have come during this very decade.

You as a USian may have nothing to fear from US nuclear weapons. I as a non-USian do.
You fear US nuclear weapons? Why? The US has no problem with Sweden. Sweden isn't a state sponsor of terrorism developing a bomb. We have no reason to harm you. Is it maybe just fashionable to say you fear the US?

Unless you're in China don't worry.

You forget our proximity to Russia.

And American sounds a lot better than USian. The rest of America can call themselves Americans if the really want to. We're not going to stop them.

Right. This is me not caring.

You fear US nuclear weapons? Why? The US has no problem with Sweden. Sweden isn't a state sponsor of terrorism developing a bomb. We have no reason to harm you. Is it maybe just fashionable to say you fear the US?

I fear them as much as I'd fear those of Iran. That's what I wrote.

I fear them as much as I'd fear those of Iran. That's what I wrote.
Well that makes sense. An Iranian nuke, given to Hezbollah, would only detonate in Israel or the US. Sweden's safe.

That would be notable, especially since Iran's currency is the Rial.

<sigh>... I imagine the other poster was making a comment on terrorism and buying nucular weapons from Iran. The means by which this is done, cheque, cash, credit card, or by wiring some broadly accepted currency in the international banking world like, oh, I dunno, US dollars, is irrelevent. Keep up!

Well that makes sense. An Iranian nuke, given to Hezbollah, would only detonate in Israel or the US. Sweden's safe.

Same for a US nuke given some puppet. We don't all prescribe to the notion of the US being a "good guy," you know.

You forget our proximity to Russia.

We're not going to miss and hit you. And I doubt we'll fight mother Russia any time soon, unless they invade Europe in that case we won't be your biggest concern.

And even though they use the Rial dollars are still the number one used curency in the world. The Euro is catching up.

The US has used them before and has been very belligerent in its spoken intention to use them when the interest befalls them since. I have not forgotten the Cold War, nor the reservations aimed to assuming the right to use them "pre-emptively" that have come during this very decade.

You as a USian may have nothing to fear from US nuclear weapons. I as a non-USian do.
I, as a citizen of the world, care about any nuclear bomb being dropped because of its effect on the environment.

Same for a US nuke given some puppet. We don't all prescribe to the notion of the US being a "good guy," you know.

No, apparantly we subscribe to 'Flavour of the Month Magazine'. Weekly.

Elgesh']<sigh>... I imagine the other poster was making a comment on terrorism and buying nucular weapons from Iran.

No shit, Einstein. It's spelt and pronounced "nuclear," by the by.

No shit, Einstein.

Well, you ignored this and made a petty point on his use of currency. It seemed... irksome.

edit: as, as you edited, you did exactly the same to my post! Thank you! Oh, that _totally_ changes the perspective, and was so helpful!

Same for a US nuke given some puppet. We don't all prescribe to the notion of the US being a "good guy," you know.
Dude, Sweden has no enemies. No nation is a "good guy". Nobody's going to waste a nuke on you folks. What would be the point?

Same for a US nuke given some puppet. We don't all prescribe to the notion of the US being a "good guy," you know.

What did we ever do to you? Have we ever mentioned Sweden has a bad place? You're our allies! (despite recent events and that nut case from Kansas who wants all of Sweden to be destroyed but he's just a fanatic who should be shot)

No shit, Einstein. It's spelt and pronounced "nuclear," by the by.
Not if you're Homer Simpson or George W. Bush.

We're not going to miss and hit you. And I doubt we'll fight mother Russia any time soon, unless they invade Europe in that case we won't be your biggest concern.

Yeah, because nuclear weapons are so containable. It's not like they have huge blast radii and spread radioactive materials with the aid of wind and water hundreds of kilometres around them. :rolleyes:

And even though they use the Rial dollars are still the number one used currency in the world. The Euro is catching up.

Nevertheless, a dollar is not something that would show up in the Iranian budget, which is what you wrote.

Some ask the question, does any nation have the right to have nuclear weapons?

A nation that needs them for its survival

I can think of at most 2 nations that fit this profile - Israel and Poland. Israel has been invaded THREE TIMES in the past 50-odd years by Arab armies bent on its destruction. Poland is sandwiched between Russia and Germany with no natural barriers.

The Israelis have nukes. I say give nuke to the Poles.

Oh, and the North Koreans don't need nukes for their survival. They have a conventional weapon of mass destruction - enough artillery aimed at Seoul to blow that city to pieces.

You don't actually need WMD to have MAD.

Oh, and just wondering, where did the Iranians get THEIR nuclear technology? Presuming they didn't develop it themselves, I can think of 3 nations:
Pakistan - the chief Pakistani nuclear scientist has been selling nuclear secrets all over the globe
Russia - I have firsthand evidence for this. when I visited St. Petersburg a couple of years ago, there were crates at the dock marked IN ENGLISH "To: Iranian Atomic Energy Admistration (or something like that)
France - history of selling nukes to Middle East. The French sold nuclear reactors to both Israel and Iraq.

I, as a citizen of the world, care about any nuclear bomb being dropped because of its effect on the environment.

Just the environment? Not any of the people killed? You sure are nice... :rolleyes:

Dude, Sweden has no enemies. No nation is a "good guy". Nobody's going to waste a nuke on you folks. What would be the point?

We have neighbours you would use nukes on. And if you haven't noticed, MAD is not exactly a local repercussion.

Same for a US nuke given some puppet. We don't all prescribe to the notion of the US being a "good guy," you know.
When has the US ever given a nuclear weapon to a "puppet" nation?

if a country that has armed militias, semi autonomus regions with their own armies that funds trains and equips terroist organisations as well as harbouring them in its own country, this country has used chemical biological and nuculer weapons in the past and regulaly executes its own citizens can have them then why shouldn't iran

just for the record thats america from the outside.....

(and yes I know I can't spell in english)

What did we ever do to you? Have we ever mentioned Sweden has a bad place?

You don't have to. Direct strikes from you may not be what we have to fear, but that's not what fear of nuclear weapons or projection of power is limited to.

When has the US ever given a nuclear weapon to a "puppet" nation?

When has Iran given Hizbollah a nuclear weapon?

And before you comment on them having given them weapons, the US has given its puppets weapons (most notably in these times, Saddam Hussein.)

Just the environment? Not any of the people killed? You sure are nice... :rolleyes:
I thought it was pretty clear in the context of the comment I was replying to that I was talking about the fact that a nuclear detonation would affect every citizen of the world directly, and that saying Americans have nothing to fear while everyone else does isn't taking into account the worldwide consequences. The fact that the casualties would also be terrible is obvious.

We have neighbours you would use nukes on. And if you haven't noticed, MAD is not exactly a local repercussion.
We're not going to attack Norway, Finland, Russia (suicide) or any other European nation.

Not if you're Homer Simpson or George W. Bush.

One fictional, and the other so Machiavellishly evil, he might as well be. :p

Yeah, because nuclear weapons are so containable. It's not like they have huge blast radii and spread radioactive materials with the aid of wind and water hundreds of kilometres around them. :rolleyes:


Nevertheless, a dollar is not something that would show up in the Iranian budget, which is what you wrote.

Unless there is a major city exactly on the border the blast won't it you. And I'm pretty sure the prevailing winds go West to East (correct me if I'm wrong) And if they fight us they'll probably be making a grab for Europe as well and if my geograph is correct Sweden is in Europe.
Just wondering, is Sweden part of NATO?

We're not going to attack Norway, Finland, Russia (suicide) or any other European nation.

And Iran would? They are somehow less capable of understanding MAD?

When has Iran given Hizbollah a nuclear weapon?

And before you comment on them having given them weapons, the US has given its puppets weapons (most notably in these times, Saddam Hussein.)

More importantly when has Iran had a weopon to give?
And you're just mad because we have puppets and you don't. (that was a joke)

When has Iran given Hizbollah a nuclear weapon?

And before you comment on them having given them weapons, the US has given its puppets weapons (most notably in these times, Saddam Hussein.)
It's kind of hard to give someone something you don't have yet.

And Iran would? They are somehow less capable of understanding MAD?
I already stated that the threat from an Iranian bomb would be against the US mainland or Israel. My response involving your neighbors was intended to counter the argument you made that the US might attack them.

EDIT: Yes. I believe that they are less capable of understanding MAD because of their religious beliefs.

Unless there is a major city exactly on the border the blast won't it you. And I'm pretty sure the prevailing winds go West to East (correct me if I'm wrong) And if they fight us they'll probably be making a grab for Europe as well and if my geograph is correct Sweden is in Europe.

Ah, someone forgets Kaliningrad and how the winds travelled north-east when Chernobyl had that "incident." Not to mention what trajectory nuclear weapons on their way from the North Atlantic would have on their route to Russia.

But, again, that's not exactly what fear of nuclear weapons needs to be limited to.

Just wondering, is Sweden part of NATO?

Fortunately, no.

When has Iran given Hizbollah a nuclear weapon?

And before you comment on them having given them weapons, the US has given its puppets weapons (most notably in these times, Saddam Hussein.)
The US had plenty of time and opportunity to give away nuclear weapons if that was its intention (and, as I stated, Iran has every right to develop a nuclear arsenal, so I don't see what your point is). As for giving other varieties of weapons to other nations, hell yes they have, but I was under the impression that this discussion was about nukes. At any rate, their support of other states via weaponry tends to bite the US in the ass later more than it bites anyone else, but this is neither here nor there in the scope of this nuclear related discussion.

The US has been responsible with its nukes. I would hope we all trust that the US won't be giving nuclear weapons to countries or groups crazy enough to use them. The same can't be said of Iran. Anyone who says they fear American weapons more than Iranian ones is irrationally anti-American.

One fictional, and the other so Machiavellishly evil, he might as well be. :p
Not so. Machiavelli would have been smart enough not to invade Iraq.

if a country that has armed militias, semi autonomus regions with their own armies that funds trains and equips terroist organisations as well as harbouring them in its own country, this country has used chemical biological and nuculer weapons in the past and regulaly executes its own citizens can have them then why shouldn't iran

just for the record thats america from the outside.....

(and yes I know I can't spell in english)

What semi-autonomus regions? We haven't had those in 140 years. The militias are just angry red necks form the south. They really can't hurt anybody. We used nukes twice and that saved millions of lives. (Invadeing Japan was practicly sucide) And what does executing murders have to do with this? AND WHAT TERROISTS ARE WE HARBORING? Explain to me where you're getting this stuff.

Just wondering, is Sweden part of NATO?

No, thank God.

If a country has declared a holy war against you I think you'd want nukes to stay as far away from them as possible. And if Sweden wants the bomb you can have it! We trust you. Unfortuantly the feeling isn't mutual.

I already stated that the threat from an Iranian bomb would be against the US mainland or Israel. My response involving your neighbors was intended to counter the argument you made that the US might attack them.

And it very well might. As I wrote, I have yet to forget the Cold War.

EDIT: Yes. I believe that they are less capable of understanding MAD because of their religious beliefs.

One could say the same thing about the leadership of the US and their Christian yearning for an apocalypse involving the Middle East. :p

Not so. Machiavelli would have been smart enough not to invade Iraq.

Ah, yes, but we were talking about "evil." ;)

And it very well might. As I wrote, I have yet to forget the Cold War.



One could say the same thing about the leadership of the US and their Christian yearning for an apocalypse involving the Middle East. :p
One could say alot of things, but Americans aren't often seen in massive street protests chanting "Death to (insert country here)".

The US has been responsible with its nukes. I would hope we all trust that the US won't be giving nuclear weapons to countries or groups crazy enough to use them. The same can't be said of Iran. Anyone who says they fear American weapons more than Iranian ones is irrationally anti-American.

How serendipitous that I write that. How silly of you not to realise that US WMD are a bigger threat to the world than Iran's.

Ah, someone forgets Kaliningrad and how the winds travelled north-east when Chernobyl had that "incident."

Chernobyl is in the Ukraine not in modern day Russia.

One could say alot of things, but Americans aren't often seen in massive street protests chanting "Death to (insert country here)".

No, they're just seen supporting PNAC and the like.

No, they're just seen supporting PNAC and the like.

Most Americans have never even heard of PNAC.

Chernobyl is in the Ukraine not in modern day Russia.

So? The winds didn't care about not going North-West or East, or wherever you said, then, now did they?

No, they're just seen supporting PNAC and the like.
PNAC don't want to start a nuclear war either. Iran, based on their statements, well they might.

Ah, yes, but we were talking about "evil." ;)

Bush isn't evil., just misguided. Dick Cheney (our Vice President) on the other hand is very evil.

PNAC don't want to start a nuclear war either. Iran, based on their statements, well they might.

PNAC is about US hegemony being perpertuated around the world, and thus the US well might, as well.

How serendipitous that I write that. How silly of you not to realise that US WMD are a bigger threat to the world than Iran's.
If you honestly believe that, you are irrationally anti-American, and there is no further point to discussing this with you, as I prefer to debate subjects with people who hold rational opinions.

Most Americans have never even heard of PNAC.

And most Iranians haven't marched in "Death to America" parades. Some of them doing so was sufficient to brand them all - why is the same not the case with the US?

For various reasons, I believe Iran is far more likely to start a nuclear war with Israel than vice-versa. So, no, they shouldn't have it, bevcause we need to stop more states from developing it, regardless of under-the-table development programs in the past.

I recently read the new book Treachery by Bill Gertz and it has some interesting facts about this issue with detailed declassified references to back up the story.

Both Iran and North Korea have signed The 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that was agreed in 1995 to extend indefinitely. North Korea signed the "Agreed Framework" in 1994 regarding their nuclear program. Both of these agreements strictly prohibit the development of enriched weapons grade uranium or plutomium.

Intelligence has found both countries have actively been building centerfuges to produce these materials (totally ignoring the treaties) and the current estimate is that both have nuclear weapons currently available. Countries currently active in unlawful nuclear trade, either knowingly or unknowlingly include: Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Libya, Syria. Their main suppliers include: China, Russia, Germany and France. North Korea has admitted it has the bomb. Iran today blatantly scoffed the IAEA's statements. All of these states are also working diligently on delivery systems for these weapons. It is estimated North Korea has or will have soon a missile that can reach the western US. (Taep’o-dong 2)

Also consider the unstable nature of all of these countries, the relentless greed of supplying nations, and the fact that these rouge states could trade freely with terrorists not associated specifically with any country.

Regarding Israel's nukes, Iran's Foreign Minister has stated "it would take many nuclear weapons to eliminate the muslim world, but only one to eliminate Israel"

One last item regarding this subject, I would recommend reading or seeing the video "Fog Of War" where Robert McNamara explains how we came within seconds of nuclear war 3 times during the "cold" war with Russia, and in the end it was "pure luck" that it didn't happen. It didn't have anything to do with rational thinking human beings, it was pure luck! If so called "rational" nations came that close, how soon do you think it will take nations like North Korea and Iran to use them?

I swear this is the last point: There are still 10 "suitcase" nukes that were developed and controlled by the KGB that we do not have intelligence on where they ended up after the break up of the USSR.

So? The winds didn't care about not going North-West or East, or wherever you said, then, now did they?

I didn't know which way the winds went. Anyway the winds would have to go North West to hit Sewden from Russia and last I checked the can't becasue that would mean they've changed since Chernobyl.

If you honestly believe that, you are irrationally anti-American, and there is no further point to discussing this with you, as I prefer to debate subjects with people who hold rational opinions.

And I not with people who fail to read to what I write, and also fail to realise the technological superiority of the US over Iran when it comes to projecting power.

And most Iranians haven't marched in "Death to America" parades. Some of them doing so was sufficient to brand them all - why is the same not the case with the US?
On this topic, I can agree with you. It is a shame that so many people hold such low opinions of ordinary Iranians.

Most Americans have never even heard of PNAC.

Forgive me but what the heck is the PNAC?

On this topic, I can agree with you. It is a shame that so many people hold such low opinions of ordinary Iranians.

I have nothing against Iranians. It's their batshit government I can't stand. Likewise, I'm sure most Iranians have nothing against us. It's our batshit government that they can't stand.

I didn't know which way the winds went. Anyway the winds would have to go North West to hit Sewden from Russia and last I checked the can't becasue that would mean they've changed since Chernobyl.

Did you know that Chernobyl is South-East of Sweden? Figure out where the winds had to blow for the fallout to reach us, which it did (we can still measure it in for instance produce from certain parts of the country.)

Forgive me but what the heck is the PNAC?

Project for a New American Century

On this topic, I can agree with you. It is a shame that so many people hold such low opinions of ordinary Iranians.

I like Iranians. THey were the first muslim country to hold cnadle viguals after 9-11. Their governement however is not on my Christmas list, so to speak.

Did you know that Chernobyl is South-East of Sweden? Figure out where the winds had to blow for the fallout to reach us, which it did (we can still measure it in for instance produce from certain parts of the country.)

http://www.mv.slu.se/ma/radio/radio/chern/cs-dep2.gif

That bigass red band of radioactive cesium should clear up any of their questions about Sweden and Chernobyl's fallout.

Project for a New American Century

And they do what?

I like Iranians. THey were the first muslim country to hold cnadle viguals after 9-11. Their governement however is not on my Christmas list, so to speak.

I liked the old Iran better, under the Shah.

http://www.mv.slu.se/ma/radio/radio/chern/cs-dep2.gif

That bigass red band of radioactive cesium should clear up any of their questions about Sweden and Chernobyl's fallout.

While I feel bad for everyone involved in that, the winds still caried it north and Sweden is not north of Russia.

While I feel bad for everuone involved in that, the winds still cariied it north and Sweden is not north of Russia.

And Chernobyl is still South-East of Sweden and Norway. Where would the winds have to go to reach us? Yup, exactly where you claimed they couldn't - North-West.

While I feel bad for everuone involved in that, the winds still cariied it north and Sweden is not north of Russia.

It's north of most of Russia, but not all of it. Even so, the Ukraine is southeast of Sweden.

And most Iranians haven't marched in "Death to America" parades. Some of them doing so was sufficient to brand them all - why is the same not the case with the US?
Because NO Americans have marched in "Death to..." parades and because PNAC wants control the world, not a nuclear wasteland.

Ok so I have no idea which way the winds blow in easter Europe. I am however fairly sure that if they went north in Chernobyl they would go North for Russia. I am wrong?

It's north of most of Russia, but not all of it. Even so, the Ukraine is southeast of Sweden.

I meant directly north of it.

Because NO Americans have marched in "Death to..." parades

And so? Some of them marching in that is somehow more incriminating than some USians supporting a complete world domination theory?

and because PNAC wants control the world, not a nuclear wasteland.

And they are very well ready to make parts of the world just that to ensure US hegemony. Remember the whole bit about pre-emption. That covers nuclear strategy as well.

I meant directly north of it.

Well then, it's not. Russia's the northernmost nation in its location, but Sweden is somewhat farther north geographically, but not directly above it.

Ok so I have no idea which way the winds blow in easter Europe. I am however fairly sure that if they went north in Chernobyl they would go North for Russia. I am wrong?

And where are we? North-West of both the Ukraine and Russia. Tada!

And so? Some of them marching in that is somehow more incriminating than some USians supporting a complete world domination theory?


And they are very well ready to make parts of the world just that to ensure US hegemony. Remember the whole bit about pre-emption. That covers nuclear strategy as well.

Look at any county and you'll find nut cases who want to control the wrold.

And I not with people who fail to read to what I write, and also fail to realise the technological superiority of the US over Iran when it comes to projecting power.
Nuclear weapons are only as dangerous as the political will to use them. The leadership of the United States has absolutely no will to start nuclear war, as it has proved time and time again. It realizes that doing so would result in its own destruction; sadly, certain governments in the Middle East have demonstrated that they aren't very rational when it comes to their own self-preservation (the Taliban essentially calling the US out after 9/11, Saddam not taking weapons inspection seriously, Ahmadinejad's recent comments against Israel).

Thus, you are essentially saying that America's leadership is as nutty as Iran's, which is simply not the case. Note that I am not an American, nor a fan of George Bush and his neocon administration, but there are certain degrees of self-destructive tendencies that are out of reach even for them.

Look at any county and you'll find nut cases who want to control the wrold.

Yup, and for some reason, Iran's are to be taken seriously and the US's not, despite the fact that PNAC is a creation of a group consisting of Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Ellen Bork, Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz, among others.

And where are we? North-West of both the Ukraine and Russia. Tada!
Jesus, people, just look up a nuclear fallout map on Google.

Thus, you are essentially saying that America's leadership is as nutty as Iran's, which is simply not the case.

And there we have it. The US leadership is not "nutty," despite Iraq and PNAC and the like, but Iran's is because, well, because.

And so? Some of them marching in that is somehow more incriminating than some USians supporting a complete world domination theory?



And they are very well ready to make parts of the world just that to ensure US hegemony. Remember the whole bit about pre-emption. That covers nuclear strategy as well.
Interesting assumption here. You seem to think that PNAC believe that they can use nuclear weapons in an unjustified manner and the rest of the world will just accept it and love the US all the more for it. What makes you think that?

And there we have it. The US leadership is not "nutty," despite Iraq and PNAC and the like, but Iran's is because, well, because.

There's a difference between nutty and sinister.

There's a difference between nutty and sinister.

Oh, one can be both, which the US leadership quite is.

Actually, I believe that the Bush Administation is 'Nutty', but not 'Nutty enough' to start a nuclear war. The Iranian Regime, however, is so 'Nutty' that I wouldnt put it past them to try to invade Turkey.

Before you jump the gun and say "No filthy muslims should have the bomb!!!" let me point out to you a few things.

Israel, a nation that does not get along with Iran (and vice versa), most likely has Nuclear Capabilities and perhaps Chemical and Biological Weapons.

Relevant Wikipage bellow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Also I want to ask, What right does the US and Europe who have spent the last century stockpiling WMD to tell other countries that they do not have the right to WMD to protect themselves (which is the excuse the US gives whenever someone wants to dismantle our WMD's, "We have to protect ourselves").

Well, Iran has the right to protect itself, so I ask of all of you, what right does the US and Europe have to tell Iran that they do not deserve WMD?

Poll forthcomming.


I agree. If Israel, the most dangerous state on the whole planet can have the bomb, than why not Iran. Iran is being threatened froma ll sides annd has the international right to defend itself. They should have the bomb just because a lot of the other countries have them. And the US shouldn't talk. It seems as llong as they, the madman country, consider themselves "not dangerous" they can have the bomb. The US is a danger to intenational stability.

The best thing would be to not have a bomb existing at all. But as long as the US and Israel have them, let those who feel endangered have their own bomb too.

Interesting assumption here. You seem to think that PNAC believe that they can use nuclear weapons in an unjustified manner and the rest of the world will just accept it and love the US all the more for it. What makes you think that?

Oh, the fact that PNAC advocates that the United States government should capitalize on its military and economic superiority to gain unchallengeable superiority through all means necessary.

And there we have it. The US leadership is not "nutty," despite Iraq and PNAC and the like, but Iran's is because, well, because.
Iran's is because of overt threats to wipe other nations off the map, because of the frequent calls for death to other countries, because it's leaders can only stand for election if a council of religious fundamentalists who believe that death in war leads to paradise approve them, because their government is overtly discriminatory against Jews and Baha'i (sorry if I misplaced the apostrophe) and has commited attrocities against them in the past.

I agree. If Israel, the most dangerous state on the whole planet can have the bomb, than why not Iran. Iran is being threatened froma ll sides annd has the international right to defend itself. They should have the bomb just because a lot of the other countries have them. And the US shouldn't talk. It seems as llong as they, the madman country, consider themselves "not dangerous" they can have the bomb. The US is a danger to intenational stability.

The best thing would be to not have a bomb existing at all. But as long as the US and Israel have them, let those who feel endangered have their own bomb too.
Israel is not a dangerous state. They defend their people and their nation. That's all.

Iran is not threatened from all sides. It's supported by China, who buys oil from them. Do you think China would stand for an invasion on it's oil supply?

Iran is like a psychotic criminal who has made death threats. You don't let that guy buy a gun.

Your appeal to fairness, let everyone have a bomb if they want one, is bullshit. I'm sure you wouldn't approve of everyone in your town being able to buy a gun regardless of mental state, criminal record, or age.

Iran's is because of overt threats to wipe other nations off the map, because of the frequent calls for death to other countries, because it's leaders can only stand for election if a council of religious fundamentalists who believe that death in war leads to paradise approve them, because their government is overtly discriminatory against Jews and Baha'i (sorry if I misplaced the apostrophe) and has commited attrocities against them in the past.

Which of course was never the case with the Soviet Union and its undemocratic system and its atrocities, and yet somehow they didn't blow the world up. Imagine that! But of course, these are filthy muslims and thus must be feared even more than the US told us to fear the filthy commies.

And there we have it. The US leadership is not "nutty," despite Iraq and PNAC and the like, but Iran's is because, well, because.
When has the US called for the complete annihilation of a nation lately?

PNAC is a special interest group. I don't know why you're so obsessed with it. Even if it had a role in starting the war on Iraq, I'd love for you to tell me when the US has used nukes at any point in time during the Iraq war.

Which of course was never the case with the Soviet Union and its undemocratic system and its atrocities, and yet somehow they didn't blow the world up. Imagine that! But of course, these are filthy muslims and thus must be feared even more than the US told us to fear the filthy commies.
Not all Muslims want to destroy the US, but Iran's mullahs seem to approve of attacking Israel and the US because if they wanted peace they weild enough political power to muzzle their government.

Israel is not a dangerous state. They defend their people and their nation. That's all.
I disagree about Israel being dangerous. It takes two to start nuclear war, after all, and those two would be Iran and Israel.

Not all Muslims want to destroy the US, but Iran's mullahs seem to approve of attacking Israel and the US because if they wanted peace they weild enough political power to muzzle their government.

And so could Russia's leaders, who hated the US perhaps even more. And yet didn't blow the world up. Weird, since they were the "nutty" ones then. Hmm, I wonder if this is what makes me not buy into the fear propaganda this time around?

I disagree about Israel being dangerous. It takes two to start nuclear war, after all, and those two would be Iran and Israel.Well, I don't know about that. If Iran launches a nuke at Israel, wouldn't they have started a nuclear war?

When has the US called for the complete annihilation of a nation lately?

And when has anyone who called for one ever done so? You seem to think that hot air = action.

PNAC is a special interest group. I don't know why you're so obsessed with it.

Oh, the fact that it is the machination of Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld and Libby and so many others of the Bush administration, and reading it basically gives you a description of its foreign policy.

Even if it had a role in starting the war on Iraq, I'd love for you to tell me when the US has used nukes at any point in time during the Iraq war.

Irrelevant, as apparently hot air = action.

Oh, one can be both, which the US leadership quite is.

They seem sane to me. Just sinister.

I disagree about Israel being dangerous. It takes two to start nuclear war, after all, and those two would be Iran and Israel.
Do you honestly think Israel would launch a first strike and see it's entire population destroyed? Iran is a much bigger country and it's people are more spread out. It's more likely to think it could survive such an exchange. Also Iran has used the whole "Paradise" thing to inspire it's soldiers, sometimes child soldiers, to die in the Iran/Iraq war. There's a precedent there that says Iran's willing to sacrifice lots of people for victory.

Do you honestly think Israel should accept nuclear destruction without retaliation?

Iran's nuclear weapons will destabilize the area. Plain and simple.

Which of course was never the case with the Soviet Union and its undemocratic system and its atrocities, and yet somehow they didn't blow the world up. Imagine that! But of course, these are filthy muslims and thus must be feared even more than the US told us to fear the filthy commies.
Neither country pressed the trigger because it was too terrified of the response of the other. Neither country *wanted* war with the other, thus the Cold War. Both governments had some sense of self-preservation. Iran has not demonstrated that it's smart enough to not use nukes against, say, Israel, once it gets them.

And so could Russia's leaders, who hated the US perhaps even more. And yet didn't blow the world up. Weird, since they were the "nutty" ones then. Hmm, I wonder if this is what makes me not buy into the fear propaganda this time around?
1) The Russians never thought that death would lead them to paradise. They thought death was the end, therefore MAD was guaranteed to work on them.

2) The Russians, despite the fact that they were enemies, took care to watch what they said to avoid an unnecessary war. Iran, on the other hand, blabs about wiping nations off the map.

Both governments had some sense of self-preservation. Iran has not demonstrated that it's smart enough to not use nukes against, say, Israel, once it gets them.

Hmm, and neither had Russia or the US or France or Pakistan. Why should Iran have to demonstrate anything they haven't had to?

Seems to me there are three problems.

1, as some have mentioned, Iran would not hesitate to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. And that would not be hard, a few nukes in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and you've essentially wiped out the country.

2, is not that Iran would use one on the US, no country is that bold or stupid yet, but that they would be careless and let one slip into the hands of someone (Al Qaeda) who is bold enough to sneak one into the Superbowl and detonate it.

3. A country with nukes is on a different level. Look at how we deal with a piss-ant little country like North Korea because they have nucleur capabilities. We don't have to take any crap from Iran right now, and neither does Israel, but the second they have nucleur warheads, the game changes, and they know that.

Yes, ideally we would all have the same amount, or preferably no, nucleur weapons, but that just doens't fly in the real world. The US and other countries have all the right in the world to keep nukes out of other countries hands. The fewer, the better.

(1st post)

Hmm, and neither had Russia or the US or France or Pakistan. Why should Iran have to demonstrate anything they haven't had to?
Because they've used their Hezbollah proxy army to attack a nuclear power (the US) in the past, because they've established terrorist cells in the US southeast, because they've threatened to wipe Israel off the map and because Death to America and Death to Israel are their top slogans.

1) The Russians never thought that death would lead them to paradise. They thought death was the end, therefore MAD was guaranteed to work on them.

And you think Iranians wish for death, that's it? Oh, my, the dehumanising part of propaganda geared toward the enemy sure has worked well it seems. Those Irans are veritable death-welcoming monsters incabaple of grasping such simple concepts as MAD! Fear them! Fear them! :rolleyes:

2) The Russians, despite the fact that they were enemies, took care to watch what they said to avoid an unnecessary war. Iran, on the other hand, blabs about wiping nations off the map.

So do many. I recall there being US politicians who spoke of socialist countries in the same way. Russia was to be destroyed, for instance. They were the same kind of monsters the Iranians are painted out to be.

I am left unphased by this fearmongering against Iran. They are not the unhuman bogey-men you seem to think they are.

Before you jump the gun and say "No filthy muslims should have the bomb!!!" let me point out to you a few things.

Israel, a nation that does not get along with Iran (and vice versa), most likely has Nuclear Capabilities and perhaps Chemical and Biological Weapons.

Relevant Wikipage bellow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Also I want to ask, What right does the US and Europe who have spent the last century stockpiling WMD to tell other countries that they do not have the right to WMD to protect themselves (which is the excuse the US gives whenever someone wants to dismantle our WMD's, "We have to protect ourselves").

Well, Iran has the right to protect itself, so I ask of all of you, what right does the US and Europe have to tell Iran that they do not deserve WMD?

Poll forthcomming.

Personally, I don't believe it is possible for missles, nukes, Atomic bombs ect. to be used to defend. They are wepons used for revenge and mass slaughter and are usually used in times of fear. Anyways, I do not believe they should be allowed, and I also believe every other country should not be allowed. They only lead to mass killings and fear. What did nukes and missles help for after WW2? They lead America and Russia into the cold war.

Also, I find it terribly funny that America is concerned with other countries militaries, when they themselves are currently in a war.

Well, I don't know about that. If Iran launches a nuke at Israel, wouldn't they have started a nuclear war?
I've always considered that a nuclear strike would be one country attacking the other with nukes and a nuclear war would involve the two launching nukes at each other. One rarely hears WWII called a nuclear war, after all. It ends pretty fast when it's a party of one.

Because they've used their Hezbollah proxy army to attack a nuclear power (the US) in the past, because they've established terrorist cells in the US southeast,

Which of course the US has never done. Let's just forget puppet proxies and abetting terrorists against the nuclear power that was the Soviet union. Hmm.

because they've threatened to wipe Israel off the map and because Death to America and Death to Israel are their top slogans.

And those things are unheard of in Pakistan.

And when has anyone who called for one ever done so? You seem to think that hot air = action.



Oh, the fact that it is the machination of Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld and Libby and so many others of the Bush administration, and reading it basically gives you a description of its foreign policy.



Irrelevant, as apparently hot air = action.
I don't think hot air = action, I think hot air + political will = action, and I have yet to be convinced that Iran doesn't have the political will to use a nuclear weapon, while this is the part of the equation that America has lacked for sixty years.

And when has anyone who called for one ever done so? You seem to think that hot air = action.



Oh, the fact that it is the machination of Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld and Libby and so many others of the Bush administration, and reading it basically gives you a description of its foreign policy.



Irrelevant, as apparently hot air = action.
In that case, you are stating that you believe hot air to equal action, since you seem to think that PNAC's ramblings make the US a rogue state. Nice to see where your own "logic" is coming from.

I don't think hot air = action, I think hot air + political will = action, and I have yet to be convinced that Iran doesn't have the political will to use a nuclear weapon, while this is the part of the equation that America has lacked for sixty years.

And I have yet to see anything to make think Iran has more will to use one than the US. Hence my initial statement still stands: I've nothing to fear from Iran that I don't from China or the US or Pakistan.

And you think Iranians wish for death, that's it? Oh, my, the dehumanising part of propaganda geared toward the enemy sure has worked well it seems. Those Irans are veritable death-welcoming monsters incabaple of grasping such simple concept as MAD! Fear them! Fear them! :rolleyes:



So do many. I recall there being US politicians who spoke of socialist countries in the same way. Russia was to be destroyed, for instance. They were the same kind of monsters the Iranians are painted out to be.

I am left unphased by this fearmongering against Iran. They are not the unhuman bogey-men you seem to think they are.
1) Clearly not all of them are, but the leadership is made up of people who approve of the death in war = paradise idea, and Iran isn't a free country. The mullahs get to choose who can run for office. It doesn't matter what the average Iranian in the street thinks, he doesn't really elect his representatives he just chooses from the representatives approved for him, nor does he have his finger on the nuclear button.

2) No they weren't. I grew up during the final years of the cold war. I never thought the Russians would be stupid enough to attack us. I don't remember being told that by my government. In addition, I don't always take the government line at face value. For example, I was never convinced that Iraq was a threat or that we needed to attack it.

I am convinced that a nuclear Iran would destabilize the region and make an act of nuclear terrorism or an outright nuclear war much more likely.

They are not the unhuman bogey-men you seem to think they are.

Their people aren't, but the members of their government are.

In that case, you are stating that you believe hot air to equal action, since you seem to think that PNAC's ramblings make the US a rogue state. Nice to see where your own "logic" is coming from.

Iran's ramblings make them a rogue state, it seems. What, using the same tactic as used against Iran against the US is "illogical?" Well, then, think about that.

Hmm, and neither had Russia or the US or France or Pakistan. Why should Iran have to demonstrate anything they haven't had to?
God, why do you keep missing the part where I'm saying Iran has every right to develop nuclear weapons? My point is that Iran is more dangerous with them than the US.

Their people aren't, but the members of their government are.

Same could be said about the US.

Iran's ramblings make them a rogue state, it seems. What, using the same tactic as used against Iran against the US is "illogical?" Well, then, think about that.
Iran's ramblings come from its *actual government*. The US' ramblings come from *special interest groups*. The two are not equivalent.

Same could be said about the US.

The U.S. isn't run by a bunch of batshit totalitarian theocrats.

God, why do you keep missing the part where I'm saying Iran has every right to develop nuclear weapons? My point is that Iran is more dangerous with them than the US.

Iraq has shown us that the US is far more dangerous than you seem to have realised. "Pre-emption" is every bit as frightening as "death to America" is.

Which of course the US has never done. Let's just forget puppet proxies and abetting terrorists against the nuclear power that was the Soviet union. Hmm.



And those things are unheard of in Pakistan.
As I stated earlier, no nation is a good guy. They all act in their own interests. Sometimes those actions are good for the rest of the world, sometimes not. The US will act in it's interests and it's allies interests in keeping Iran from going nuclear. Iran can avoid this and remain more stable and prosperous by abandoning plans for nuclear weapons.

Do you really think I approve of Pakistan? Fucking dictator Musharraf is playing Al Quaeda and the US against each other to ensure his power. Fucking Pakistan's transfered nuclear weapons technology. Do you think I want Iran to be another Pakistan?

Iran's ramblings come from its *actual government*. The US' ramblings come from *special interest groups*. The two are not equivalent.

And again, who are the people in that "special interest group"? Why, Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Ellen Bork (the wife of Robert Bork), Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Those names ring a bell? Which country's government are those involved in, hmm?

Iraq has shown us that the US is far more dangerous than you seem to have realised. "Pre-emption" is every bit as frightening as "death to America" is.
Again, show me when "preemptive action" has involved using nuclear weaponry.

Iraq has shown us that the US is far more dangerous than you seem to have realised. "Pre-emption" is every bit as frightening as "death to America" is.
It most certainly is not. Preemption doesn't cause a full scale nuclear war. Death to America from a nuclear nation might.

As I stated earlier, no nation is a good guy. They all act in their own interests. Sometimes those actions are good for the rest of the world, sometimes not. The US will act in it's interests and it's allies interests in keeping Iran from going nuclear.

But actions similar to those were supposed to be indicative of risques involved with having nuclear weapons at ones disposal. They are not so when the US commits them?

Iran can avoid this and remain more stable and prosperous by abandoning plans for nuclear weapons.

Do you really think I approve of Pakistan? Fucking dictator Musharraf is playing Al Quaeda and the US against each other to ensure his power. Fucking Pakistan's transfered nuclear weapons technology. Do you think I want Iran to be another Pakistan?

So, of course, Iran sees its only option. Get the nukes, and be as left to have them as Pakistan is. Iran has every reason to get nukes, US belligerence against them regarded. It seems to be the only thing to stave it off, and they'd be fools not to get them after the whole "axis of evil" tripe. If something like that had been said by the US about my own country, I would like to see us get nukes ASAP.

It most certainly is not. Preemption doesn't cause a full scale nuclear war. Death to America from a nuclear nation might.

Pre-emption might as well. Again, "any means necessary."

And again, who are the people in that "special interest group"? Why, Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Ellen Bork (the wife of Robert Bork), Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Those names ring a bell? Which country's government are those involved in, hmm?
As I already said, portions of PNAC's agenda have been taken up by the administration (this being the entire purpose of special interest groups), but I fail to see where any "wipe nation x off the map" plan has ever been adopted.

Edit: By "plan adopted", I mean "stance taken by administration"

Again, show me when "preemptive action" has involved using nuclear weaponry.

Show me where Iran has used nuclear weapons? See, just because they haven't used them doesn't mean they won't. But we are here discussing why Iran would use them, and why I fear that the US would do too.

Show me where Iran has used nuclear weapons? See, just becaused they haven't used them doesn't mean they won't. But we are here discussing why Iran would use them, and why I fear that the US would do too.
Because the preemptive action plan involves destroying governments, not countries, nuclear weapons are incompatible with its goals. The destruction of Israel and nuclear weapons go together very well, however.

But actions similar to those were supposed to be indicative of risques involved with having nuclear weapons at ones disposal. They are not so when the US commits them?



So, of course, Iran sees its only option. Get the nukes, and be as left to have them as Pakistan is. Iran has every reason to get nukes, US belligerence against them regarded. It seems to be the only thing to stave it off, and they'd be fools not to get them after the whole "axis of evil" tripe. If something like that had been said by the US about my own country, I would like to see us get nukes ASAP.
I've posted the reasons that Iran can't be trusted with them. They were not limited to support for terrorism or the establishment of terrorist cells in our country (which I dont' think the US ever did to the USSR), but also their threats against the US and Israel, their use of the "Paradise" ideology to motivate their people to die against the Iraqis, and the fact that they very likely see themselves as being able to win a nuclear war vs. Israel.

Hopefully the US will adopt a policy of bombing the nuclear reactors and military sites of every unstable country that plans to build nuclear weapons. Hopefully the bombing of such sites as soon as we find out about them will become as inevitable as sunrise. Then maybe we can reduce the likelyhood that some ignorant theocrat will trigger a nuclear holocaust.

And I have yet to see anything to make think Iran has more will to use one than the US. Hence my initial statement still stands: I've nothing to fear from Iran that I don't from China or the US or Pakistan.

Iran will probably never use nukes. They will however misplace one on a boat, in the hands of Al Quida, in New York Harbor, and boom there goes the neighborhood.
And you're right the chacnes of any of those countries bombing Sweden is slim to none, but the chances of an Iranian made bomb hitting us is very high so we should be trying to stop them. You should either help us or stay out of it. Not giving Iran the bomb won't hurt you but if they hit us your government might give us some troops for the invasion of Iran which would follow.

And again, who are the people in that "special interest group"? Why, Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Ellen Bork (the wife of Robert Bork), Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Those names ring a bell? Which country's government are those involved in, hmm?

Why have I never heard that they're in a secret organization planning to take over the world? The Democrats would have brought it up in the last election, or the media would have reported it. I know it's because they've taken over America's media and politcal system. Or mabey you're just paranoid. Which seems more logical?

Hopefully the US will adopt a policy of bombing the nuclear reactors and military sites of every unstable country that plans to build nuclear weapons. Hopefully the bombing of such sites as soon as we find out about them will become as inevitable as sunrise. Then maybe we can reduce the likelyhood that some ignorant theocrat will trigger a nuclear holocaust.
I'd think it would only mean that no government will try to develop a peaceful nuclear program anymore, and that those that want bombs simply move their facilities underground.
El-Baradei says it already: If you bomb Iran now, all resources will be devoted to developing a nuke even faster, underground. You don't solve the problem, if you're lucky, you move it by a year.
Plus Iran will retaliate, and there's almost 200,000 Americans who'll have to deal with it. You can say goodbye to Iraq in that case. And I'm not sure how much anti-chem and anti-bio stuff the US actually has on tab in Iraq right now.

and i ask you..... has Bush done anything wise?


Of course Bush has done some wise decisions while in office. Ahhm... he certainly wont eat pretzels again...does that count?

Actually, there is one group that is not friends with Israel that would be pissed off if Iran nuked Israel... Hamas.

Hamas may be a bunch of murderers, but they do have a goal - take over what is now Israel and kill all the Jews. They want to TAKE Israel, not wipe it out.

If Iran nuked Tel-Aviv, Hamas would be upset. If Iran nuked Jerusalem, Hamas would retaliate.


Timeline:
Iran nukes Israel. Tel-Aviv and Haifa destroyed. Jerusalem is burning.
Israel counterattacks. Tehran wiped out.

A few months later:
One thousand suicide bombers hit surviving Iranian cities. Pretty much every shopping mall, major restaurant, market square, and movie theater is destroyed in the space of an hour. Worst terrorist attack in history.

Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Asqa Martyrs Brigades, and Fatah all claim responsibility.

Some of the bombs turn out to be dirty bombs.

Provisional Israeli government in Eilat offers the Palestinians a state in return for a mutual defense pact. Palestinians agree.

The State of Israel and the Islamic State of Palestine jointly declare war on Iran. Jordan, Egypt, and Syria hop on the bandwagon. Iran is screwed.

If Iran nuked Jerusalem, Hamas would retaliate.
Iran may be Shia Muslims, but that doesn't mean the Rock Dome isn't a holy site to them. They believe in Mohammed as the prophet too, and as such the place from which he left the earth is holy.

So even if Iran had the nukes and the missiles to accurately deploy them(even though Israel has demonstrated just days ago that they could shoot down an Iranian incoming missile) they wouldn't attack Jerusalem.
Unless Ahmadinejad somehow manages to get rid of the Supreme Council and abandon the theocratic order.

The idea that Iran would use a nuclear bomb against Israel is preposterous. There are a huge percentage of Muslims living within and surrounding Israel. Second, there are holy sites that belong to all three religions (Christianity, Judaism, and especially Islam) so, not even the president of Iran (who has been out of touch with sanity) can do such a thing as this.

Timeline:
Iran nukes Israel. Tel-Aviv and Haifa destroyed. Jerusalem is burning.
Israel counterattacks. Tehran wiped out.
A few months later:
One thousand suicide bombers hit surviving Iranian cities. Pretty much every shopping mall, major restaurant, market square, and movie theater is destroyed in the space of an hour. Worst terrorist attack in history.
Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Asqa Martyrs Brigades, and Fatah all claim responsibility.
Some of the bombs turn out to be dirty bombs.
Provisional Israeli government in Eilat offers the Palestinians a state in return for a mutual defense pact. Palestinians agree.
The State of Israel and the Islamic State of Palestine jointly declare war on Iran. Jordan, Egypt, and Syria hop on the bandwagon. Iran is screwed.

Hamas sends people to Iraqis working with the US. No muslim country beides Iraq Afaganstan (not really) and mabey Turkey care.
Iran nukes Isreal
muslims celebbrate untill an Irealie nuke slmas into Mecca and Tehran.
Ireal vs Muslim world Middle East is turned into a nuclear wasteland and NATO sends all of the radiated soil to the sun and lets the ocean fill up the hole. Worlds largest swimming pool

I would trust them with one more than North Korea or China. They know Israel would strike back unless they could overwhelm Israel. China and NK mean business. Even as a Israel-supporter, I still think they have a right to a nuke if the US does.

I would trust them with one more than North Korea or China. They know Israel would strike back unless they could overwhelm Israel. China and NK mean business. Even as a Israel-supporter, I still think they have a right to a nuke if the US does.

I'm not worried about Isreal I'm worried about hte US. Give Osama a nuke he puts it in a boat and boom! there goes New York. Any one can have the bomb assuming they're not a dictatorship.

NK is just crazy when Kim Jong ile or however you spell his name dies the country's going to fall apart.

We should sponsor a coup, put Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi's son in power, and revive the Pahlavi dynasty.

Timeline:
Iran nukes Israel. Tel-Aviv and Haifa destroyed. Jerusalem is burning.
Israel counterattacks. Tehran wiped out.

A few months later:
One thousand suicide bombers hit surviving Iranian cities. Pretty much every shopping mall, major restaurant, market square, and movie theater is destroyed in the space of an hour. Worst terrorist attack in history.

Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al-Asqa Martyrs Brigades, and Fatah all claim responsibility.

Some of the bombs turn out to be dirty bombs.

Provisional Israeli government in Eilat offers the Palestinians a state in return for a mutual defense pact. Palestinians agree.

The State of Israel and the Islamic State of Palestine jointly declare war on Iran. Jordan, Egypt, and Syria hop on the bandwagon. Iran is screwed.
Hamas sends people to Iraqis working with the US. No muslim country beides Iraq Afaganstan (not really) and mabey Turkey care.
Iran nukes Isreal
muslims celebbrate untill an Irealie nuke slmas into Mecca and Tehran.
Ireal vs Muslim world Middle East is turned into a nuclear wasteland and NATO sends all of the radiated soil to the sun and lets the ocean fill up the hole. Worlds largest swimming poolLOL.. I say you guys are twins..

Twice the humor... twice the Laughs :D

Iran developing an A-bomb am I missing something?

Iran’s can have nukes if it can get them (currently Iran is receiving Uranium and technology off the west so we hold the strings)

off course Russia is able to supply uranium but the last thing Russia wants is a Islamic fundamentalist nuclear power in the middle east that we can trace back to Russia

Hey ... if George W Bush and Kim Jong-Il can have nukes, fuck it ... let Iran have them too.

*shrug*

It disturbs me how non-chalant some posters have been about nuclear proliforation. Now, I know it would be almost impossible today to make even one nation give up its nukes, let alone all of them. However, the least we can do is not let them spread any further.

Hey ... if George W Bush and Kim Jong-Il can have nukes, fuck it ... let Iran have them too.

*shrug*
Why add yet another explosive element? I mean, hell, it doesn't get any worse than North Korea having nukes, but the more crazy people with nukes there are, the more chances there are that one of them will use them.

It disturbs me how non-chalant some posters have been about nuclear proliforation.

Meh ... GWB and Kim Jong-Il have had nukes for a while and nobody's been turned into a glass parking lot yet over their insanity.

So .. again ... *shrug*

Why add yet another explosive element?

Because it makes the world more entertaining. :D

Why add yet another explosive element?

:D 'explosive _element_!' See, that's funny, because uranium's an ele... <realises how sad it is to explain jokes. And that this one wasn't funny. Or even _intended_ to be a joke. Slinks off and slits wrists>

Now, if we were to make things truly fair, who would get nukes?

My plan to prevent nuclear war is to immediately hand over control of all nuclear weapons to... NASA.

That's right. The National Aeronautic and Space Administration. On second though, NASA shares control with the ESA.

Why do the rocket scientists get nukes? Because they have uses for them nobody can object to.

One use is to destroy meteors. NASA and the ESA, once they had the nukes, would proceed to launch the ICBMs into parking orbits. Incoming asteroid, we unleash hundreds of nukes.

The other use is called Orion. This is a theoretical ship design that is basically powered by nuclear bombs. You detonate a bomb behind a blast plate, and the blast propels you forward.

The only LEGAL problem is that nuclear weapons are banned in space. That needs to be reversed - nuclear weapons are ONLY allowed in space.

Orion may be impractical, but destroying asteroids would prevent damage that exceeds a full nuclear exchange - ironic? Nukes used to save the world.

The idea that Iran would use a nuclear bomb against Israel is preposterous.

Ha!

There are a huge percentage of Muslims living within and surrounding Israel.

Because the Mullahs have shown such concerns for the lives of muslims :rolleyes:

The Iranian leadership are second to Saddam Hussein in repressing Muslims, also, the Muslims surrounding Israel are Arabs, not Persians.

Second, there are holy sites that belong to all three religions (Christianity, Judaism, and especially Islam) so, not even the president of Iran (who has been out of touch with sanity) can do such a thing as this.

The maniacs who lead Iran would walk over hot coals on a public holiday to murder Jews.

Fass, frankly I see no reason behind your rantings. Heck, they are only microns above the paranoid rantings out of Tehran.

It disturbs me how non-chalant some posters have been about nuclear proliforation.
Well, this is not like a maniac getting the bomb. Yes, it is fashionable to call Ahmadinejad a maniac, but he doesn't fit the bill anymore than any other leader does.

His statement about Israel was way below the belt, but it was not made in an official matter. He was attending a conference full of Uni-Students - it is not automatically Iranian foreign policy.
And besides, his newer statement was for leaving Israel in one piece, and granting Jews a homeland, just not in Palestine. He's got the distant point that it really is Europe's problem, and that they more or less made the Palestinians suffer for their own mistakes. Of course Israelis don't want to move, but on principle it is a better policy than simply calling for Israel to be wiped out.

Ultimately Ahmadinejad is a politician like any other: ideological, sometimes over the top but internally consistent with his personal goals. And to achieve these goals, he has to stay in control of a powerful Iran.
Nuking Israel would not wipe the country of the map - but it would mean that he'd get shot, after Iran is destroyed. It is simply not in his interest.

If you want to get the real reason behind all this, I'd guess that it is a mixture of trying to squeeze the West out of all sorts of concessions, and as another defense mechanism against American aggression.
This is not as far fetched as some might make it look. Just about 6 months ago a majority of Americans on this forum agreed that regime change by force is a good idea for Iran - and I think that was even before Ahmadinejad was elected.
The US has bases in all of Iran's neighbours I believe. Iraq is an excellent base of operations for an invasion of Iran, and second fronts would be opened from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iran's conventional army will have serious problems, even moreso than before.

Nukes are just another means of deterring an invasion if you ask me. If you don't consider Iranians to be able to handle their own affairs, and think it would be okay to force another government on them, then this may be a problem to you. Otherwise, you can calm down.

All that being said, I don't think another Middle Eastern power having the bomb is a good thing - first Israel, then Pakistan. And once Iran has it, Egypt will have it too, and even Jordan could I suspect.
Turkey might be next, and eventually even Syria. And don't forget the new Iraqi government.
It'd be a powder keg I can do without.

If other Shithead nations think they have the right to the Bomb then why not let this Shithead nation have it?

America will always have more.

They destroy an American city, we glass their nation.

I think that works out to be a pretty even compromise.

In my opinion, no nation should have nukes, period. But it seems to be double standards for western nuclear powers to lecture the world over 'nuclear proliferation' when we can blow any country we want off the planet.

To me, Israel is no more/less of a Rogue state in the way that they are effectively occupying another country - but thry have the backing of western governments so they can do what they want.

And if they developed the bomb (which they've said they don't want to do when i last looked) and did give it to Al-Quieda who nuked a western city, Iran would be nuked back - and that'snot what the Iranian government wants.

In my opinion, no nation should have nukes, period. But it seems to be double standards for western nuclear powers to lecture the world over 'nuclear proliferation'.

I still maintain it's not about morality. Of _course_ you're right, it's obviously a double standard. But some things are too dangerous to allow you the luxery of a moral decision; the West has a number of advantages over Iran, including nuclear weaponry. Why voluntarily give away an advantage when the consequences could be so dreadful?

Should the US have a bomb with a president claiming that he speaks directly to god AND receives a reply?!

Should the US have a bomb with a president claiming that he speaks directly to god AND receives a reply?!

If we all got together and impeached Bush, his VP, and his entire cabinet then we wouldn't HAVE this problem now would we?

http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/generic/5e8f/

Pretty clear, I think...

So far, 41 people apparently want to see Israel get hit with a nuke or are so naive as to believe that the mullahs are not fanatic enough to order the launching of a nuke against israel..

So far, 41 people apparently want to see Israel get hit with a nuke or are so naive as to believe that the mullahs are not fanatic enough to order the launching of a nuke against israel..

Newflash: If these mullahs controled the army in Iran, don't you think Israel would have already been invaded or bombed? (Iran does have an airforce, you know)

The mullahs hold no control over the military and certainly would not control the bomb. When they scream "Death to Israel" you can take it about as seriously as when Jerry Falwell screams "Death to Fags!"

Ignorance must be bliss, eh? I bet you were afraid of Russia in the 1960s because the media told you to be, weren't you?

Newflash: If the mullah's controled the army in Iran, don't you think Israel would have already been invaded or bombed? (Iran does have an airforce, you know)

The mullahs hold no control over the military and certainly would not control the bomb. When they scream "Death to Israel" you can take it about as seriously as when Jerry Falwell screams "Death to Fags!"

Ignorance must be bliss, eh? I bet you were afraid of Russia in the 1960s because the media told you to be, weren't you?
Don't pay very much attention to iranian politics do you? The mullahs have a hell of a lot of control. The reason they don't send their airforce over is because Israel would make mincemeat out of it. And now that we're in Iraq our guys would slaughter them as well. The idea is to kill the jews, not throw away money without killing the jews.

Don't pay very much attention to iranian politics do you? The mullahs have a hell of a lot of control.

Riiight.

Ok then, quick quiz: How many mullahs are there in Iran?

Riiight.

Ok then, quick quiz: How many mullahs are there in Iran?
Only if you can answer my question. How many days was the last election open for, what was the purported turnout, what was the actual turnout, and why did a state-run newspaper in Tehran publish the number of people that voted days before the polls closed?

Only if you can answer my question. How many days was the last election open for, what was the purported turnout, what was the actual turnout, and why did a state-run newspaper in Tehran publish the number of people that voted days before the polls closed?

Avoiding the question. Very good.

That's ok. I don't blame you. The American media wants you afraid of Iran just like they wanted you afraid of Russia in the 1960s - even though, as it turns out, Russia was inept.

Carry on, though. Dance, puppet, dance. The company will be very pleased.

I, however, ain't buyin' it.

Avoiding the question. Very good.

That's ok. I don't blame you. The American media wants you afraid of Iran just like they wanted you afraid of Russia in the 1960s - even though, as it turns out, Russia was inept.

Carry on, though. Dance, puppet, dance. The company will be very pleased.

I, however, ain't buyin' it.

So the Media made up the story about the hostages in the 70s?

Ever talk to any Iranian Christians?

Nevermind how the U.S. has restricted the world from acquiring nukes. Why not consider the situation in Pakistan and how Russia continues to launch satelites for Iran just to test U.S. Intel.

World Map (http://www.canjo.net/mm/img/what/World-Map-1200.gif)

Russian-Iranian relations in regard to nukes, mil. funding, and oil (http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/a-list/2004-May/030650.html)

Countries with nukes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons)

Kashmir Situation Map (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kashmir_rel_2003.jpg)

India voted for the I.A.E.A. resolution due to pressure from the United States. In July 2005, India and the U.S. signed a nuclear deal that granted New Delhi access to civilian nuclear energy cooperation; however, the U.S. Congress has not yet approved the entire deal. The United States implicitly hinged its agreement with India on New Delhi's support for the September 24 resolution. Yet, as PINR argued on September 26, "because India was not behind drafting the resolution, and has shown little outspoken regard for punishing Iran due to its nuclear program, Tehran views India in a different light as it does the U.S. and the E.U.-3."

Indeed, since the September 24 vote, Iran has refrained from punishing India. Iran sees India as an important regional partner and wants to avoid a deterioration in relations. Additionally, the Indian government is internally divided over supporting further action against Iran, and despite its vote for the resolution, New Delhi has shown little interest in verbally condemning Iran and has instead tried to focus on the positive relations between the two countries. How Iran will react if India supports the United States in an actual U.N. resolution condemning Iran remains to be seen. India is no doubt doing its best to avoid such a development. (http://www.pinr.com/report.php?ac=view_report&report_id=385&language_id=1)

If Iran got its hands on nukes, the immediate biggest problem wouldn't be the threat to Americans, but rather the squeeze put on Pakistan. You also have to remember how everything is a convoluted mess there and although everyone would appreciate having the Washington's influence purged from the region, some countries depend upon the "American gUARd-father" in order to preserve their positions and survival.

Taiwan, Tibet, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Singapore.... the list goes on and on with the controversy that's happening in South and SE Asia. Pakistan though is the biggest bomb ready to go off. Islamabad and New Delhi haven't exactly gotten along for quite some time, and if the Muslim dominated nation has to deal with another country that receives support from ex-soviets, yet even more steam will be added to the pressure cooker. The U.S. has kept India from doing anything drastic since the mid-70s when Nixon threatened to do nothing about potential Soviet supported insurrections. At the time, we did not want to have China's biggest worry distracted itself because of Vietnam. Today, India still wants to control a bigger piece of Asian Pie, and we need its help to keep China from expanding economically in corrupted Thailand and deprived Indonesia.

To say the least, without our involvment in Indian affairs, Bhutan would have never dreamed of trying to beat the world in its self-defined character of "Gross National Happiness" or GNH. India desire to "unite" all of South Asia into one nation is comparable to Hitler's dream to rebuild (and surpass) Germany's borders durinig WW2. Pakistan's position is not quite as vulnerable as Poland's, but if Iran does setup nukes that can hit Jiwani, Turbat, Quetta, and Karachi, it could be suggested that Islamabad may succumb to a NAP like the Nazi-Soviet agreement.

Should the US have a bomb with a president claiming that he speaks directly to god AND receives a reply?!

For one thing, the President can't launch at will.....

I'm not going to bother to slog throught he length of this discussion...though I'm sure it's facinating...at least in spots.

The truth is, nuclear weapons are an artifact of physics. Atoms are just plain made that way. Non-proliferation is a pipe dream. The Muslim world gave us such discoveries as...well...math. The thought that somehow we can stop them from figuring out how to build a bomb is silly. It turns out that today, a good nuclear weapon requires some specific materials that we think we can control access to...but tomorrow, someone is going to figure out how to easily split some more common heavy atom. Then what? (A purely theoretical gold-based weapon could produce a blast radius the size of Europe. We're just missing a couple of pieces to make it work.)

Non-proliferation buys us time...but until we get over the basic notion that killing millions of people might be a good idea...it's just a stopgap. Until then, MAD might be the best we can do. (Sadly, America lacks the political will to drop a nuke on, say, Mecca...so we don't have much leverage over stateless terror groups.)

Newflash: If these mullahs controled the army in Iran, don't you think Israel would have already been invaded or bombed? (Iran does have an airforce, you know)

The mullahs hold no control over the military and certainly would not control the bomb. When they scream "Death to Israel" you can take it about as seriously as when Jerry Falwell screams "Death to Fags!"

Ignorance must be bliss, eh? I bet you were afraid of Russia in the 1960s because the media told you to be, weren't you?Iran hasn't *directly* attacked Israel because they can't. Assuming they could get past their long time enemy Iraq, the US presence and No Fly Zones, and all the other countries between Israel and Iran (hint: they're not all that friendly with each other) they couldn't get past the IAF.

No-Iran should never have any nuclear bomb or cabilities to possess one.
In fact, no further countries should ever have one and most that have them, need to have them taken away.

Once Iran has one, that'll be another country we'll be forced to "negotiate" with somewhere down the road.

We should never need to "negotiate" with them. Our dealing with them should always be from a position of absolute power-no level playing field.
Now is the time to maintain our dominance and not give it away, to see how it plays out in the future.

That's ok. I don't blame you. The American media wants you afraid of Iran just like they wanted you afraid of Russia in the 1960s - even though, as it turns out, Russia was inept.

Carry on, though. Dance, puppet, dance. The company will be very pleased.

I, however, ain't buyin' it.

Interesting... Do you close your eyes and think your personal problems will go away too?
Russia was scary. They could have wiped us out (although they'd go down with us) It wasn't untill the late 70's and early 80's we started to pull ahead. How was Russia inept? Were all of those ICMBs just wooden dummies?
The Russians almost started WWIII by mistakeing one of their own test rockets for an American ICBM. We were 3 seconds awy from war.

Iran by itself will never use nukes. They will however 'missplace' them and Al Quida will 'find' them and boom there goes some major western city.

It's like this:

The US, France, Britain, etc. have the bomb. They are all democracies. Before any of the leaders of those countries put a finger on the button, they had better have a damn good reason to do so because they are ultimately answerable to the people of the country for their actions. So..

1. Leaders of nuclear states should be answerable to the people.

Now you may say that the PRC and the old Soviet Union also had the bomb, and their leaders never used it, yet the were not answerable to the people.

This is true. However, like the nuclear powers of the west, they valued the lives of their countrymen, or perhaps just their own lives enough to know that using nukes would mean their own extinction. So....

2. Placing a value on human life stands at the core of the philosophy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) which has worked since the beginning of the nuclear era.

However, NEITHER of these conditions apply for IRAN or NORTH KOREA.

1. They are not democracies and the leadership is NOT accountable to the people.
2. The Iranian clerics who advocate a "martyrdom" lifestyle, clearly do NOT place any value on human life but rather are Nihilists, who value destruction. Likewise Kim Jung Il has so oppressed his people, can anyone say that he values them more than cattle? I doubt it.

So both Iran and NK fail the nuclear responsibility criteria in my book.

Must everyone be reminded that the only nation to show the irresponsibility and lack of restraint to actually use nukes to kill people has been the US. So really we don't have much in the way of talking points.

You're totally right. America used nukes 60 years ago to save millions of it's own soldiers and Japanese civilians who would have died in an invasion of the island; ergo the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose motto is "Death to America" should be perfectly free to do whatever it pleases.

That's ok. I don't blame you. The American media wants you afraid of Iran just like they wanted you afraid of Russia in the 1960s - even though, as it turns out, Russia was inept.

No, Russia was far from it. The Khrushchev reforms made the Soviet economy roar, they had the edge in space and military technology, and posessed enough chemical and biological weapons to shame the US program. We had a lot to fear from Russia in the 1960's, and nukes were the least of it.

Avoiding the question. Very good.

That's ok. I don't blame you. The American media wants you afraid of Iran just like they wanted you afraid of Russia in the 1960s - even though, as it turns out, Russia was inept.

Carry on, though. Dance, puppet, dance. The company will be very pleased.

I, however, ain't buyin' it.

Good comrade, good! Now I must ask a favor. The CIA/FOXNEWS Jew-Rays have worn out my last tinfoil hat! Soon I will be a brainwashed zombie of Chimsuit McHitlerburton! I need more hats! Do you know where I can get some?

Ever talk to any Iranian Christians?No, But I heard some of Pat robertson Pro-Israel garbage..

He is Like not an Iranian Christian.. But he sure does share you views on Israel and Iran.

_______________________________
Christian Zionists Heralded in Israel

Israel's leaders react enthusiastically to Pat Robertson's Christian Zionism.

HERZLIYA, Israel -- As they say in the preaching business, Pat Robertson had them in the palm of his hand.

No matter that his audience wasn't predominantly Christian, let alone American. They drank up every word. And when the founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network culminated his give-no-ground speech to the elite of Israel's political and military establishment with the ringing declaration, "Be strong! Be strong!" many of his listeners jumped to their feet to give him a boisterous round of applause.

The rapturous response to Robertson here last week is just one example of how a large and growing group of conservative American Christians has entered Israel's political scene with startling vigor, even as the Holy Land's indigenous Christian communities wither due to war and a dying economy.
_________________________________________________________________


JERUSALEM (AP) — Led by American evangelist Pat Robertson, thousands of Christian pilgrims gathered in the Holy Land on Sunday to express support for Israel.

Evangelical Christian leader Pat Robertson says Muslims are trying to foil 'God's plan' for Israel.

The solidarity mission arrived as Israel launched an offensive in the Gaza Strip to stop rocket attacks on southern Israel. More than 50 Palestinians and five Israelis have been killed in the fighting.

The tourists, many from the United States, said they were not frightened by the violence but only hoped to boost Israeli morale during their visit.

In two Jerusalem appearances, Robertson praised Israel as part of God's plan and criticized Arab countries, saying their hopes to include Israeli-controlled land in a Palestinian state are part of "Satan's plan."

Robertson also offered a hint of rebuke for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for his plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, saying only God could decide on transfers of biblical land.

Robertson's views coincided with those of many of Sharon's own constituency, who oppose his plan to evacuate all 21 Jewish settlements from Gaza next year. Sharon has pledged to push ahead, declaring that the presence of 8,000 Jews among 1.3 million Palestinians is untenable.

In a gathering of more than 4,000 pilgrims at a Jerusalem convention center Sunday, Robertson warned that some Muslims were trying to foil "God's plan" to let Israel hold on to its lands.

Iran does have an airforce, you know

Technically, their air force is in a shambles. They do not have the ability to project air combat power beyond their borders - in fact, they don't really have any credible ability to stop either the US or Israel from flying at will over Iran wherever and whenever they wish.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm

It is, at best, a rag-tag hodge podge of old, outdated, ill-maintained fighter aircraft.

The Iranians have apparently made purchases of the latest Russian surface to air missiles, but as of 2004, no deliveries had been made on purchases made in FY 2000.

No, Russia was far from it. The Khrushchev reforms made the Soviet economy roar, they had the edge in space and military technology, and posessed enough chemical and biological weapons to shame the US program. We had a lot to fear from Russia in the 1960's, and nukes were the least of it.

The U.S.S.R. was a backward shithole dependent on Western trade for its survival. 90-95% of "their" technology they received from the West, from people Lenin called "deaf-mute blindmen."

Bomb them back into the stone ages. :mad:

(which is the excuse the US gives whenever someone wants to dismantle our WMD's, "We have to protect ourselves").


Primaryly the diffrence is that we dont actually use them in offensive capacity. There is every chance that Iran will. Espically if they want to wipe someone off the map.

Primaryly the diffrence is that we dont actually use them in offensive capacity. There is every chance that Iran will. Espically if they want to wipe someone off the map.
We've used them twice in an offensive capacity against a nation that didn't have nuclear weapons.

We've used them twice in an offensive capacity against a nation that didn't have nuclear weapons.

Of course you left off the obvious fact that the US used them to END a war, and to unanimous agreement, save lives, rather than START a war and lead to the death of who knows how many.

Why is this important? As I stated before, The US values life. The US president is also accountable to the citizens.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were tragic, but they may have been the only good use of atomic bombs considering all the other alternatives (invasion of Japan, continued bombing, or blockade and starvation) would involve countless more deaths in order to secure the downfall of the militarist regime in Japan.

Let's hope Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain the only example of the use of nuclear weapons. It would make the death of the citizens of those cities much more meaningful.

As I state previously, neither Iran or NK place much value on life and their leadership is not accountable to the citizenry.

Think either country would use an A-bomb to "save lives"??? I doubt it.