Nuclear Iran

[Emperor_Taiki]

I dont really see how much more simply I can explain this, but I will try again.

If a nation does not have a nuke they  are at a disadvatage to a nation that does. If they do have a nuke they have an advantage over nations that dont. The Iranian leadership is ambitious and wants to retain increase control of the country, anyone can see that from their support of terrorists, attack against their own people, and defiant pursuit of nuclear engery and weapons.

If Iran wants to extend their power (they are surrounded by nations with strategic resources). A nuke is prerequiste to doing this, because it profinds them with more security.

Going off your calcualtion of 10% for the Hormuz that is a big deal and iran blocking it would wreck the saudi and iraqi ecoanmies which would give Iran much more power in the region, which is what they want because they want control and there ambitious.

Again this is not certain, but it isnt that unlikly either.

And just because you have elected leaders does not make your government responsible. Democacry is not the key its just a good sign, and to be a true democracy/liberal democracy you need a lot more than elections.

[ABWorsham4]

@idk_iam_swiss:

I couldnt have said it better myself. I completely agree with you Omega.

I agree, but there must be a military option threat to force Diplomacy.

[ABWorsham4]

@idk_iam_swiss:

Unfortunatly hes right. You dont see canada or madagascar threatening anyone do you?

Canada threatens Maple Trees and Madagascar often theatens Lemurs.  :-)

[Jermofoot]

@Emperor_Taiki:

If a nation does not have a nuke they  are at a disadvatage to a nation that does. If they do have a nuke they have an advantage over nations that dont. The Iranian leadership is ambitious and wants to retain increase control of the country, anyone can see that from their support of terrorists, attack against their own people, and defiant pursuit of nuclear engery and weapons.

A nuke wouldn’t help that.  Nuclear power would of course help the country, but those are two separate things.

If Iran wants to extend their power (they are surrounded by nations with strategic resources). A nuke is prerequiste to doing this, because it profinds them with more security.

Who the hell are they going to invade?  Their last open conflict went no where.  They already neighbor one country with nukes and have another few not too far from them.  Not to mention sandwiched between two countries being assisted by the US.  Who buys a gun for their house then goes out guns blazing in the name of more security?

Going off your calcualtion of 10% for the Hormuz that is a big deal and iran blocking it would wreck the saudi and iraqi ecoanmies which would give Iran much more power in the region, which is what they want because they want control and there ambitious.

Not really.  It may take a slight military action to correct the situation, should it ever happen.  But that would require overcoming the US 5th fleet that is posted there along with other nations’ warships.  It’s also just as easy to divert imports to other countries in the short term and in the long term continue on energy alternatives.  Saudi Arabia also does not have to rely on the Straits.

And just because you have elected leaders does not make your government responsible. Democacry is not the key its just a good sign, and to be a true democracy/liberal democracy you need a lot more than elections.

Yes, but you must respect nation sovereignty.  Saudi Arabia is a kingdom (scored as one of the 10 worst, and far below Iran, in the Democracy index) with incredible economic disparity, human rights issues, and has nuclear ambitions yet you never hear anyone talking about bombing them.  Why is that?  What else aren’t you saying that makes a difference here?

[U-505]

@ABWorsham:

@idk_iam_swiss:

I couldnt have said it better myself. I completely agree with you Omega.

I agree, but there must be a military option threat to force Diplomacy.

There is a military threat. It is an implied retaliatory threat. If you use nuclear weapons in an offensive manner without provocation, then you will be destroyed. Period. It doesn’t have to be said to be understood.

If you live in a country with any form of civil rights policies, then you know that it is simply absurd to punish anyone for “assumed intent to do harm”. In this case, reasonable doubt guarantees that you can’t come to that conclusion with anything even close to 100% certainty.

[a44bigdog]

I don’t feel Iran would ever launch a Nuke at anyone even Israel irregardless of Imadinnerjaket’s rhetoric. They simply are not that suicidal. Now them quietly slipping one to one of their little client organizations such as Hezbullah or Hamass is another story.

I also could be wrong but if I recall correctly the last time Israel flattened someone’s nuclear program they did not ask permission of anyone.

[U-505]

@a44bigdog:

Now them quietly slipping one to one of their little client organizations such as Hezbullah or Hamass is another story.

I doubt they would do this, either. The trail leading back to Iran would be lit up with big neon signs.

[idk_iam_swiss]

Why does Iran even sponsor them in the first place?

[Lucifer]

There is no way of stopping Iran to get nukes. Air attacks and conventional missiles could only set back the nuclear program by a few years. The strat brains in the US’ think tanks and Pentagon understands this, although the former president didn’t….

[Emperor_Taiki]

@Subotai:

There is no way of stopping Iran to get nukes. Air attacks and conventional missiles could only set back the nuclear program by a few years. The strat brains in the US’ think tanks and Pentagon understands this, although the former president didn’t….

then bomb them every few years.  The Iranians are putting alot of effort into this, and they work likly stop if they new we had the gut to destory their labors. And where are you getting your info on the think tanks and Pentagon.

Yes, but you must respect nation sovereignty.  Saudi Arabia is a kingdom (scored as one of the 10 worst, and far below Iran, in the Democracy index) with incredible economic disparity, human rights issues, and has nuclear ambitions yet you never hear anyone talking about bombing them.  Why is that?  What else aren’t you saying that makes a difference here?

I am not trying to defend saudi arabia, but they are better than Iran because they are not aiming for nukes and are not interested in having an empire. Mostly they are interested in wasting their wealth on their absurd lifestyles, and while that is horrible it is better than Iran who may accauly be considering seizing oil in Iraq, Kuwiat, and Saudi Arabia. It really would not be that crazy for them to invade. Americans are not interested in fighting another war with Iran, much less a nuclear Iran, (even if Iran is smart and does not resort to nukes, the media/politicians/voters at home will start spazing out about a nuclear war getting started) might bank on the softness of western nations. It has happened before. Persoanly i think western nations dont have the gut for this and that Iran would be right it calling our bluff.

Iran has a strong military, its had twenty years to work on it and is surrounded by week and destabalized states, it is a mistake to assume that a war with them will be easy or cheap, especaily if we let them have the initiaitve or wait till they have nukes. Think back to the churchill quote.

[idk_iam_swiss]

Guys, war shouldnt even be in your top 5 options. Thiers diplomacy, sanctions, and a whole bunch of OTHER methods that arent for war. Not that Im a pacifist, its just wars are expensive…If only they were cheaper…

[Jermofoot]

@Emperor_Taiki:

then bomb them every few years.  The Iranians are putting alot of effort into this, and they work likly stop if they new we had the gut to destory their labors. And where are you getting your info on the think tanks and Pentagon.

I don’t think so. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-10-01-iran-talks_N.htm

Here is what diplomacy gets you:

•Iran agreed to let inspectors from the United Nations’ nuclear regulatory agency inspect its newest nuclear fuel enrichment facility, buried in a mountain near Qom, south of Tehran, within two weeks. The United States, Britain and France announced its existence last week and demanded such a response.

•Western powers agreed to let Iran transfer low-enriched uranium to Russia for further enrichment. The move lets Iran pursue peaceful nuclear research. (I’ve also read France and that the uranium will be converted to fuel rods for a medical reactor)

•Both sides agreed to further meetings this month. At the United Nations, Iranian officials even suggested they would be open to “summit” meetings involving their nation’s leaders.

I am not trying to defend saudi arabia, but they are better than Iran because they are not aiming for nukes and are not interested in having an empire.

They have the same desire for nuclear energy as Iran.  What makes you think Iran wants an empire?

Mostly they are interested in wasting their wealth on their absurd lifestyles, and while that is horrible it is better than Iran who may accauly be considering seizing oil in Iraq, Kuwiat, and Saudi Arabia.

You mean like the US?  There is no reason for Iran to do that.  It would have no chance for success.

Americans are not interested in fighting another war with Iran, much less a nuclear Iran, (even if Iran is smart and does not resort to nukes, the media/politicians/voters at home will start spazing out about a nuclear war getting started) might bank on the softness of western nations. It has happened before. Persoanly i think western nations dont have the gut for this and that Iran would be right it calling our bluff.

Desert Storm.  That was an international address to Iraq invading Kuwait.  The same thing would happen with Iran, if they were so stupid to do so.    As pointed out previously, they would be destroyed in no time.

Iran has a strong military, its had twenty years to work on it and is surrounded by week and destabalized states, it is a mistake to assume that a war with them will be easy or cheap, especaily if we let them have the initiaitve or wait till they have nukes. Think back to the churchill quote.

That’s why we negotiate if there is a concern, which is working.  Save the chicken hawk stuff for another day.  We already got burned the last time for WMD scares.

[Emperor_Taiki]

i beleive these recent breakthoughs are a result of iran being scared of the west giving the green light to isreal. What do you think they are a result of, nice dinner conversation? I never said we should not conduct diplomacy with Iran, I am just saying it would not be good if they got a nuclear weapon or could quickly assemble one. Diplomacy only works if backed up by power, or maybe East Timor could settle this dispute for us.

In general the saudis have no interest in their own country, they are compalcent like the west and only interest in blowing their own cash on luxuries. Iranian leadership is in interested in its own countries power and i dont see why they would not want a monopoly on middle east oil. If the US was almost going to pull out of Iraq after 4,000 dead over the course of 5 years( from 06-07 was when the anti-war movement was at its highest) , i dont see them putting up a fight against the full military power of Iran.

Also, I know this is going to proably start another debate that is very tried, but you brought it up.
it was not just a scare,Saddam was trying to get nukes( which they would have eventually and now we would be dealing with a nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq) aswell as suppoting terrorism and being an abusive dictator.If John McCain(John McCain was the first critic of the US occuaption stratagy that aslo supported the orinignal invasion) had won in 2000 the US would have won the war alot sooner, but we won the war anyways and as long as we deal with Iran properly the war will have been very much been worth it.

[Imperious Leader]

Please leave out political figures/references out of thread. (John McCain). We don’t want to go in this direction

[Omega]

If I remember well, they haven’t found any nuclear facility/WMD in Iraqi.

I completely agree with the fact that you can’t act against a nation based on the assumption that he will do something stupid. There is nothing as absolute certainty in world affairs.

You say I am a pacifist. I am not sure if I understand what you imply.
If by pacifist, you mean someone who believes in peaceful discussions first, then yes, I am a pacifist.
If by pacifist, you mean someone who believes Military should NEVER be used, then you are incorrect, or I have not expressed myself correctly.

Say self-defence. I agree that every nation on this planet has the right to exist. I think most people can agree. Thus, if someone attacks, say Canada, Canada will have the right to defend itself. But that right is only limited to defence. Should Canada attack the aggressor, than he becomes an aggressor and the attacked country has the right to defend itself too, which leads to an infinite wheel.
I do not really believe in absolute (except maybe that we live and die, and that numbers can go on infinitely). I will never agree with someone who believes that it is INEVITABLE that a country will attack another one. Nobody can read into the future.
That is why I refuse any argumentations about pre-emptive strike. This is something that goes against my thinking. How can you be so sure that one will attack you that you give yourself the right to attack them?
But we are getting into the Right war discussion, and I do not believe that I am capable at the moment to express my thoughts logically.

“If a nation does not have a nuke they  are at a disadvatage to a nation that does. If they do have a nuke they have an advantage over nations that dont. The Iranian leadership is ambitious and wants to retain increase control of the country, anyone can see that from their support of terrorists, attack against their own people, and defiant pursuit of nuclear engery and weapons. »
First, do we have proofs that they are attacking their own country? You are getting into the ideas of plot (of government trying to control its people). Its very possible, and I must admit I have little to no interest in Iranian politics.
What makes you think they support terrorists attack?
Second, I fail to see exactly what kind disadvantage you are talking about. It’s a military weapon/threat, yes. But how exactly is one disadvantaged to not possess nuclear weapons? Like, is Canada disadvantaged to USA because we don’t have nukes?

Do we have the right to nuclear weapons? That is a big question. I’d love to reply NO. Not sure how though and if its possible logically.
Instead, let me say things this way : Either NO country has the right to nuclear weapons, either ALL country has the right to nuclear weapons. Its that simple to me. If USA. Russia and other big countries can have nuclear weapons, why shouldn’t smaller countries like Iran be allowed to get them?
I do agree though that having the technology to build such weapon does not mean that one is ready to possess them. But quoting Transformers 2 :D “Who are you to judge us” Like who are we to say that Iran is not fitted in having nuclear weapons? Do we have any criteria?
Russia is also very ambitious. And one can say that Russia government is trying to control opposition in China. Some even say that Russia eliminate their opponents (there was this story of journalists killed/poisoned)

Don’t get me wrong. I completely disagree with Iran trying to get the bomb (if that is what they seek). I also feel that there are better alternatives to energy problems. Hydro energy, aerial energy, for example. Of course, none of those can generate as much energy as nuclear energy can.

[Emperor_Taiki]

@Omega:

“If a nation does not have a nuke they  are at a disadvatage to a nation that does. If they do have a nuke they have an advantage over nations that dont. The Iranian leadership is ambitious and wants to retain increase control of the country, anyone can see that from their support of terrorists, attack against their own people, and defiant pursuit of nuclear engery and weapons. »
First, do we have proofs that they are attacking their own country? You are getting into the ideas of plot (of government trying to control its people). Its very possible, and I must admit I have little to no interest in Iranian politics.
What makes you think they support terrorists attack?
Second, I fail to see exactly what kind disadvantage you are talking about. It’s a military weapon/threat, yes. But how exactly is one disadvantaged to not possess nuclear weapons? Like, is Canada disadvantaged to USA because we don’t have nukes?

Its common knowledge that the Iranian regime abuses and attacks its own people, and that it funds terrorist orgnaizations. Your a smart person, you can go look it up on the web.

Nukes destroy everything, so in one sence it is a military advatage, but since it destory everything and militay threats are also political, social and econamic threats, it is everything advatage. Canada and the US of A are good buddies, but the US dose use its many advatages it has over canada against it (this is a sign the US is a responsible nation). However many of the countires around Iran are it’s rival, and Nukes would cause a shift in the balance of power that might lead to a very devistating outcome rather quickly.

When you say thing like “who are we to judge other”, it seems like your saying that their is nor criterea to judge nations, that their is no morality. Of couse that is not what you mean since you are having this discusion and have stated you support for peaceful soultions and that war should only be used in self defence, so obviosly you beleive in some way of juding the ethics of nations and what the best thing to do is.

I feel that only the responsible nations(examples US/UK/France/Isreal) should have nuclear weapons. So I also dont think Russia should have nukes. Having nukes is not a moral issue, it is who has the nukes that matters. Good people should have power, bad people shouldn’t.

[idk_iam_swiss]

The flaw in your arguement is deciding WHO is a “responsible nation”. What standard do you hold EVERY NATION by?

[Emperor_Taiki]

@idk_iam_swiss:

The flaw in your arguement is deciding WHO is a “responsible nation”. What standard do you hold EVERY NATION by?

You dont think that their are standards that you can hold nations too? You dont beleive in truth? I doubt it.
What do you think of dictatorship, One-Party rule, genocide, controlled press and speech, North Korea, Myanmar, Sudan?
It is common and reasonable to treat these nations as irresponsible and evil. So you agree with me on some level you can judge nations. Of couse there are no absolutes and things get commplicated when you ally with a nation like the Soveit Union, but some times you have to befriend bad guys to get bad guys because it would be foolish to take every jerk on at once.

Truth and justice makes up the good, and to do the good is ultimatly the purpose of any person or state.

[idk_iam_swiss]

whoa. thers no need to get uppity. I just meant who decides whos “good” or “bad”. what if the one calling everyone “bad” is themselves guilty of what they accuse.

[Guest]

Those who think they know the truth no longer seek the truth.