NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4943782.stm

Remeber, sharing is caring!

The Iranians aren't helping the situation by saying they're gonna share their nuclear technology.

Can we please nuke these jackasses now?

Nuking them would be THEE worst answer!

I wasn't aware that the knowledge to build nuclear power plants was all that secret, and that one wasn't allowed to share it.

I disagree. The free world has been too lenient with terrorists, crackpot dictators, ethnic cleansers, and the like. We need to send a message. North Korea and Iran- If you want to spread nuclear technology around so anybody can get a nuclear weapon for a few million, then the world will no longer put up with you. If you fuck with us on this, we will make your entire nation uninhabitable for a few thousand years.

I don't see why Iran can't have nuclear technology. It can be used as a source of energy, light homes and stuff. But, it's hard to trust Iran. If th UN and other organizations keep a close eye on them, then I don't see much of a problem. But, I don't like the idea of spreading nuclear tech. Especially if it gets in the hands of some rouge state or terrorist. Now, the U.S. shares nuclear tech, which is alright, but I don't like the sharing of nuclear weapons tech

I disagree. The free world has been too lenient with terrorists, crackpot dictators, ethnic cleansers, and the like. We need to send a message. North Korea and Iran- If you want to spread nuclear technology around so anybody can get a nuclear weapon for a few million, then the world will no longer put up with you. If you fuck with us on this, we will make your entire nation uninhabitable for a few thousand years.

All that will serve to do is galvanize the Islamic world and make us look worse than the Nazis.

I wasn't aware that the knowledge to build nuclear power plants was all that secret, and that one wasn't allowed to share it.


Like a well said Iranian government spokesman, or woman or whatever... ;)

Like a well said Iranian government spokesman, or woman or whatever... ;)
But he's got a point. I don't think they really have conclusively broken any rules but the one they took upon themselves.

If they had, the West would have an easier time taking action.

Like a well said Iranian government spokesman, or woman or whatever... ;)

Hey, if the West can do it (and does - hello India!), then Iran can, too.

It's just that we don't like it when they do it, but don't see anything wrong in our own actions. We're hypocrites, plain and simple.

We're hypocrites, plain and simple.

But we're hypocrites who have big bombs. And we like it that way. We have the bombs, and we don't want them to have any. Especially since they threaten to wipe nations off the map, and so forth. And have theocracies...which I don't trust. At all.

And that whole India thing- you people who say "well, the U.S. can share info with India, so North Korea can share with whomever they want, etc..."

India ALREADY HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS. And the U.S. did not offer to teach them how to build bigger ones.

I disagree. The free world has been too lenient with terrorists, crackpot dictators, ethnic cleansers, and the like. We need to send a message. North Korea and Iran- If you want to spread nuclear technology around so anybody can get a nuclear weapon for a few million, then the world will no longer put up with you. If you fuck with us on this, we will make your entire nation uninhabitable for a few thousand years.
Ah yes, the genocide option. Very popular I hear. North Korea has only got 23 million people in it, but Iran has 68 million so we could get into the record books with that, no sweat.

Of course there would be damage elsewhere, I doubt North Korea could nuke us, but it would probably flatten Seoul (10 million) and possibly Tokyo (12-22 million). Iran may NOT have nukes, but I'd bet that it'll launch what it has against Israel... Yup, our place as king of the heap 'o bodies (tm) would be secured for a very long time.

I like it, let's go for it!















May I suggest a trip to Hiroshima's Peace Museum so you can see the effects of what you are so freely suggesting?

All that will serve to do is galvanize the Islamic world and make us look worse than the Nazis.

Perfect. muslims love the Nazis. We'll be heroes.

Hey, if the West can do it (and does - hello India!), then Iran can, too.

It's just that we don't like it when they do it, but don't see anything wrong in our own actions. We're hypocrites, plain and simple.


Well I don't think India is a premier sponsor of state terrorism. Neither do I think of other world nuclear tech users as such. Pakistan is of course in that grey area. But clearly Iran with it's outspoken president and past performances in the terrorism arena is not like everyone else.

But he's got a point. I don't think they really have conclusively broken any rules but the one they took upon themselves.

If they had, the West would have an easier time taking action.


Well in the west we do alot of "hand wringing". I think we waste alot of time discussing when we should be putting that aside and taking some action. I think democracy has actually got in the way of solving some of these problems such as Iran. We want everyone to be democratic yet we are bogged down by it sometimes. That is why I actually backed the pre emptive strike on Iraq. I think a pre emptive strike should be done on Iran now. Tomorrow would be the ideal time for me. I think talking about it has brought us nothing but closer to an Iranian(terrorist) nuclear bomb. I don't want to see a nuke dropped on anywhere before we do something about it.

-snip-
Two things:
1) You can't equate Iran and Terrorism.
2) And the West could not win a war with Iran without paying costs no one is willing to pay.

Two things:
1) You can't equate Iran and Terrorism.
2) And the West could not win a war with Iran without paying costs no one is willing to pay.

Absolutely I can equate Iran with terrorism. They are a known state sponsor of terrorism.

There is always a solution to every problem. I tend not to paint that broad of brush when talking of a combat situation.

the West could not win a war with Iran without
You're quite generous describing this as a conflict for 'the West'. I think it'll be a breath-takingly short list of nations who'll involve themselves at all.

Absolutely I can equate Iran with terrorism. They are a known state sponsor of terrorism.
Everyone says that, but details are always sparse. Hezbollah perhaps, but that one has a military and a political faction, one formerly terrorist, one not.

There is always a solution to every problem. I tend not to paint that broad of brush when talking of a combat situation.
Well, the good news is that the people in the Pentagon share my realism.

If you want to spread nuclear technology around so anybody can get a nuclear weapon for a few million, then the world will no longer put up with you.
Unless you are an "ally" of the US - like Pakistan for instance.

Last thing Sudan needs is nuclear technology, or for that matter bio-weapons. Imagine the Jangaweed with chemical weapons. :(

Absolutely I can equate Iran with terrorism. They are a known state sponsor of terrorism.

Exactly.


There is always a solution to every problem. I tend not to paint that broad of brush when talking of a combat situation.

Again, I agree. I think people misunderstand me when I say we should "nuke em". That's just flowery and debate provoking speech. What I really mean is :Tell them we are sick of their bullshit. We are not putting up with it anymore. You have 7 days to think this proposal over-

1. abandon all nuclear aspirations- if you have energy problems, we can come build you a hydroelectric plant, or maybe if you're nice, and allow permanent UN inspectors, we can help build you a nuclear plant which has absolutely no capability to produce weapons grade uranium or plutonium. Sorry, we don't trust you or your successors in office.
2. stop advocating terror, teaching terrorist philosophies, sponsoring terror, and allowing terrorists to live freely in your nation.
3. Leave Israel alone. Yes, we know they tend to be jackasses. We'll work on that, get the palistinians their own state, and help the palistinians with economic and humanitarian aid. But you have to stop sending money to the terrorist groups over there. Don't piss the jews off- try to work with them, and we'll put pressure on them to play nice too.
4. Not everyone is Muslim. Not all Muslims are crazy. Don't let the crazy ones run your country. Period. Other religions deserve to live in peace too. Don't treat women like shit anymore. You seriously need to get some of these nuts out of the dark ages. And NO stoning people!

If, after seven days, they do not agree to said terms, we tactically nuke all nuclear facilities and enrichment sites in the country. We put ten spy satellites over the nation. We see a nuclear site- take it out. We see a chemical plant- take it out. They build up arms- take out all military infrastructure. And so on.

See, I can be reasonable. :p

Well I don't think India is a premier sponsor of state terrorism.
Ever heard of the Tamil Tigers? Indira Ghandhi had quite a bit of fun with those guys and Sri Lanka...

Perfect. muslims love the Nazis. We'll be heroes.
:confused:

Absolutely I can equate Iran with terrorism. They are a known state sponsor of terrorism.
Only as much as is the US. Don't forget the incredibly blurry, subjective line that seperates freedom fighters from terrorists.

Well in the west we do alot of "hand wringing". I think we waste alot of time discussing when we should be putting that aside and taking some action. I think democracy has actually got in the way of solving some of these problems such as Iran. We want everyone to be democratic yet we are bogged down by it sometimes. That is why I actually backed the pre emptive strike on Iraq. I think a pre emptive strike should be done on Iran now. Tomorrow would be the ideal time for me. I think talking about it has brought us nothing but closer to an Iranian(terrorist) nuclear bomb. I don't want to see a nuke dropped on anywhere before we do something about it.
Iran doesn't have nukes, nor will it any time soon. So far Iran has been pursuing only a small number (I can't remember exactly, less than 20) of uranium enriching centrifuges. About the right amount for a couple of civil nuclear power plants. If they want to make nukes they need thousands. What seems to be the case right now is that Iran has reached for the proverbial cookie, and the US has forbade them to take the whole jar. Iran seems to be responding in a angsty 'I can take the jar if I really want' attitude, when realistically they can't, not right now.

Can we please nuke these jackasses now?
Pakistan, which is 97% Muslim, and has nukes themselves, might not share your sense of enthusiasm?

You suggest nuking a country to demonstrate how dangerous nukes are. Well thought out. NOT!!

Many posts are either anti-muslim, or anti-Iraq and just say "nuke 'em". What kind of attitude is that? That's like killing all Christains 'cause some happen to be anti-semantic (which I don't get at all). That's like a country blowing America to pieces because some crazy group of people make a bad impression of America on them. This is about the Iranian government.

Many athiests don't want to die, because dying to them is the end. They have everything to loose if they die. Many religions have heavens that are only reached if you are a "good person" (kinda depends on the relgion). They have nothing to loose if they die, and everything to gain. Extremist "muslims" think they'll go to heaven for blowing people up. They have nothing to loose, everything to gain.

This makes an extremist "muslim" nation the most dangerous in terms of nukes. If they launch nukes, even if they die, they don't care.

I'm not saying Iran is that kind of country, but you have to take that into consiteration, and think about who they'll share their technology with.

I'm not sure about what to do on this topic. There needs to be nations with nukes, or someone will have a monopoly, and blow everyone else to bits. I think the technology should be shared, as long as they are SURE it will be used correctly. Statments from Iranian poloticians doesn't make me that sure they'll be responsible. Maybe, the UN could run their plants, and give the energy to Iran. I'm kinda sucpicious of the UN getting too powerful though.

Also, If any government were determined enough to get nukes, they could. We thought Iraq had them illegally. We should get them going towards being responsible with the tech, not banning it forever.

I disagree. The free world has been too lenient with terrorists, crackpot dictators, ethnic cleansers, and the like. We need to send a message. North Korea and Iran- If you want to spread nuclear technology around so anybody can get a nuclear weapon for a few million, then the world will no longer put up with you. If you fuck with us on this, we will make your entire nation uninhabitable for a few thousand years.

Nuclear technology =/= nuclear weapons. You seem to think that by having the know how, every Tom, Dick and Ali can start building one from the parts of a still. Building the required centrifuges to manufacture the fissile material would be a big "Uranium enriching" sign right there. As to selling out nuclear weapons, only people too stupid to become leaders would ever consider selling one of the most powerful strategic weapons in their nation to a third party.

Oh, and using the nuclear option to prevent it? Only a crackpot hillhbilly would suggest something like that and not realize how stupid it sounds.

You suggest nuking a country to demonstrate how dangerous nukes are. Well thought out. NOT!!

As I have already said, that was a reactionary post to the article- while I meant to instigate some debate- and intended to express a certain frustration with these saber-rattling assholes.

By all means, don't nuke the whole country. Give the afore mentioned and highly reasonable untimatum. If they refuse, then TACTICALLY nuke them (or use a bunch of bunker busters and other really big non-nuclear bombs if you must) until they realize that this is the modern world, and their bullshit will not be tolerated anymore.

Only a crackpot hillhbilly would suggest something like that and not realize how stupid it sounds.

Only a self-righteous jackass who doesn't read a full thread refers to someone as a "crackpot hillbilly" just because they are sick and tired of the PC way the world is dealing with enemies of freedom and progress.

As I have already said, that was a reactionary post to the article- while I meant to instigate some debate- and intended to express a certain frustration with these saber-rattling assholes.

By all means, don't nuke the whole country. Give the afore mentioned and highly reasonable untimatum. If they refuse, then TACTICALLY nuke them (or use a bunch of bunker busters and other really big non-nuclear bombs if you must) until they realize that this is the modern world, and their bullshit will not be tolerated anymore.
Who kicked off all of this sabre rattling in the first place?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html

George WMD Bush

Iran has already taken notice what has happened to the first nation on George the Lesser's hit list. Iran should sit back and let the US do the same to them?

Of course the Middle East is unstable. I wonder who made it that way?

Well in the west we do alot of "hand wringing". I think we waste alot of time discussing when we should be putting that aside and taking some action. I think democracy has actually got in the way of solving some of these problems such as Iran. We want everyone to be democratic yet we are bogged down by it sometimes. That is why I actually backed the pre emptive strike on Iraq. I think a pre emptive strike should be done on Iran now. Tomorrow would be the ideal time for me. I think talking about it has brought us nothing but closer to an Iranian(terrorist) nuclear bomb. I don't want to see a nuke dropped on anywhere before we do something about it.
And if you test out your theory and Pakistan puts a nuke up your ass, will you then say ouch?

And if you test out your theory and Pakistan puts a nuke up your ass, will you then say ouch?


Pakistan seems to me a bit smarter than Iran. Different people in charge there. Different in many ways...

Ever heard of the Tamil Tigers? Indira Ghandhi had quite a bit of fun with those guys and Sri Lanka...


Apples and oranges I must say.

Only a self-righteous jackass who doesn't read a full thread refers to someone as a "crackpot hillbilly" just because they are sick and tired of the PC way the world is dealing with enemies of freedom and progress.
[Sinbad white guy voice]The president said they have nukyulear ambitions, we should nuke their asses so they don't develop nukyulear weapons and nuke somethin'.[/Sinbad white guy voice]

Only as much as is the US. Don't forget the incredibly blurry, subjective line that seperates freedom fighters from terrorists.

Of course the term is subjective. But terrorist are terrorist even if some view them as freedom fighters.

Of course the term is subjective. But terrorist are terrorist even if some view them as freedom fighters.
Then the american independence guys were terrorists in their (then) unconventional tactics against the british. You know what, forget that: 'Terrorist' is just the name given to the small-innovative-yet-difficult-to-defeat-movements that challenge the powers that be, or the side from which you are getting the information.

Only a self-righteous jackass who doesn't read a full thread refers to someone as a "crackpot hillbilly" just because they are sick and tired of the PC way the world is dealing with enemies of freedom and progress.

I've read your posts. I've read your plans. And I've only got one thing to say. It still sounds like a crackpot idea. Fine. You nuke Iran's centrifuges. Here's what happens.

Iran can't do squat about it except really put a lot pressure to destabilizing Iraq and Israel as payback. Fallout from the various sites now sends deadly radiation not only throughout Iran, but could possibly blow over to Iraq and other neighbouring countries. Maybe as far as Israel if the winds are right. Won't they be happy?

Russia looks at this. They think. "Fuck it! The US'ians used nukes again. But this time we've got it. Hmmm....the Chechens are giving us big problems here and here. If only there was a way to pacify them. Hmmm...." Boom

China looks at Taiwan. They think Taiwan belongs to them. They know they can't realistically invade there. But the US has set a precedent for nuclear strikes. Boom. Probably not. But possible.

North Korea looks at this. They think: "Hmmm, the evil capitalists have used nuclear weapons because another country has reached for them. This cannot stand. Next they will threaten us with nuclear weapons. We cannot stand for this." What do you think will happen hmmm?

And of course you're utterly forgetting international backlash from the use of nuclear arms and the resultant fallout. No country with a brain cell to share among it's leadership would stand for this. Not for nuclear arms. India, Europe, China, Russia, Canada, South America and everybody else would censure the US, probably setting back relations by a hundred years and re-creating a cold war mentality of them or us, with the them being the US and the rest of the world as us. Sanctions might occur, strangling trade to America which may respond with resource wars.

Now then. Think your idea is any better now?

As for enemy of freedom and progress, I think you'd better look at the US more. It's done about as much as the Soviet Union as far as backing up dictorships and oppressive regimes go. Those lily white hands you think the US has is stained with enough blood to drown entire cities. Or are you forgetting the likes of the Shah of Iran, Pakistan, the Mujahidin, the Baath party and numerous others throughout history who made their way to the top and stayed there on the bodies of those who wanted civil rights and freedoms in their hah, demockracies.

You call it PC, I call people who call it PC naive and childish in their understanding of the world.

Pakistan seems to me a bit smarter than Iran. Different people in charge there. Different in many ways...
Yeah, just how different?

Pakistan: Experts Says U.S.-Pakistan Relations Fragile, Complex (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/01/51add68d-9d4b-41a1-b692-62de46bdf101.html)

Airstrike strains Pakistan alliance (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=76152006)

Pakistan, Iran ink four accords (http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/feb2005-daily/24-02-2005/main/main4.htm)

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi also called on Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and discussed bilateral issues and regional and international matters of mutual concern. Also on Wednesday, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz called on Iran’s supreme leader and Rahbar Ayatollah Ali Hoseini Khamenei and discussed Pakistan-Iran relations.

The two leaders underlined need for unity in the Muslim Ummah and also discussed the restructuring of the OIC to make it an effective and vibrant body. Khamenei said Islam is the religion of peace, tolerance and amity and stressed the need for projecting Islam in its true perspective. He also praised the vision of enlightened moderation as posited by President Pervez Musharraf and his role in the Muslim Ummah.

'Pakistan-Iran ties are deeply rooted in history' (http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=34096&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs)

Underestimating "intelligence" is as dangerous as overestimating "intelligence"?

Ugh can we just get the damn apocalypse over with already. I have finals in a few days and I'd like to have the end of the world before them please.

I wasn't aware that the knowledge to build nuclear power plants was all that secret, and that one wasn't allowed to share it.

I imagine its more of an institutional knowledge/industrial capacity type sharing, rather than 'spilling' the secrets.

why is it that america is allowed to have nukes while iran is not? considering americas hostility towards numerous countries and its bullying of the middle east, i dont think i can trust america. wat is america going to say? that its nuclear weapons are for peaceful purposes and are not going to be used? dont b naive, if america has nukes, chances are it wants to use them.

however, it somehow thinks it can tell countries like iran to not have them, even though israel has over 200. if irans development of nukes is wat is required to balance the power in the middle east, then so be it.