Be a Supporter!

Iran should have atomic weapons

  • 4,499 Views
  • 105 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
Cootie
Cootie
  • Member since: Jul. 7, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-02-26 23:04:11 Reply

For a nation that jizzes over the word "free-trade" all day America sure does like to tell other countries what they can and can't produce.

Economic sanctions that we put against Iran are going to be far more dangerous than warheads will ever be. You push a country too hard and they become desperate, and desperate leaders have been known to snap. Also, is it such a surprise that Iran wants nuclear weapons of their own? The countries surrounding Iran have these weapons and it is only natural that they would want them for themselves as an insurance policy to not be attacked. Why is it so certain that if they build them that they will feel the need to use them?

The truth is that no country in this world would dare use nuclear weapons anymore. It is common sense that doing so would be a disaster and even the most evil of leaders know this.

to quote The Incredibles, "With everyone super... no one will be"

For I am and forever shall be... a master ruseman.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-02-27 01:01:42 Reply

At 1 hour ago, Cootie wrote: The truth is that no country in this world would dare use nuclear weapons anymore. It is common sense that doing so would be a disaster and even the most evil of leaders know this.

Pretty sure the big fear with nuclear weapons has nothing to do with a cvountry using them. Let's just say Iran is pretty cozy with the sorts fo peoplethat would use a nuclear weapon.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 44
Programmer
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-02-27 02:06:44 Reply

yes totally, why not give a Fundamental Islamic government that supports and funds terrorist organizations like hezbollah and Al-Qaeda weapons of mass destruction? nothing wrong could go possibly wrong.

Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-02-27 07:50:12 Reply

At 5 hours ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: yes totally, why not give a Fundamental Islamic government that supports and funds terrorist organizations like hezbollah and Al-Qaeda weapons of mass destruction? nothing wrong could go possibly wrong.

nah, certainly a country that funds and arms jihadist groups that are attacking our soldiers overseas and try to attack non muslim civilians (and muslim civilians that are not the right sect) overseas and at home would NEVER slip them a nuclear weapon to smuggle into another country to attack a major city... nah, that would just be unthinkable. They might put on a bomb vest or try to detonate a car full of explosives near a government building, but to take out a large city?.... nah. /sarcasm


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Cootie
Cootie
  • Member since: Jul. 7, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 43
Movie Buff
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-02-27 18:54:02 Reply

At 17 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote:
At 1 hour ago, Cootie wrote: The truth is that no country in this world would dare use nuclear weapons anymore. It is common sense that doing so would be a disaster and even the most evil of leaders know this.
Pretty sure the big fear with nuclear weapons has nothing to do with a cvountry using them. Let's just say Iran is pretty cozy with the sorts fo peoplethat would use a nuclear weapon.

I think that treating Iran like a big pile of shit is a more direct danger than them maybe being to pull of a very primitive and outdated atomic weapon.


For I am and forever shall be... a master ruseman.

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 44
Programmer
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-02-27 19:59:22 Reply

At 1 hour ago, Cootie wrote: I think that treating Iran like a big pile of shit is a more direct danger than them maybe being to pull of a very primitive and outdated atomic weapon.

I think treating them like shit is a better idea, at least it has a chance to demoralize and cripple them like we already have economically. plus the idea of them putting out primitive atomic weapons is alot worse because primitive weapons are usually more dangerous (exploding on impact, exploding out of nowhere, DIRTY RADIATION, etc.)

Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-02-27 22:10:44 Reply

At 14 hours ago, Korriken wrote:
At 5 hours ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: yes totally, why not give a Fundamental Islamic government that supports and funds terrorist organizations like hezbollah and Al-Qaeda weapons of mass destruction? nothing wrong could go possibly wrong.
nah, certainly a country that funds and arms jihadist groups that are attacking our soldiers overseas and try to attack non muslim civilians (and muslim civilians that are not the right sect) overseas and at home would NEVER slip them a nuclear weapon to smuggle into another country to attack a major city... nah, that would just be unthinkable. They might put on a bomb vest or try to detonate a car full of explosives near a government building, but to take out a large city?.... nah. /sarcasm

Here is a pretty funny bunch of questions for you chaps: If it is possible that these extremist regimes would supply nuclear weapons to rag tag hit and run factions, why haven't we done it? We sided with the Taliban against Russia when they invaded Afghanistan, we helped Bin Laden personally in that war too, why didn't we just slip them a nuclear warhead to use on the Russians? Why is it that the Russians didn't do this to us during the war in Vietnam? The Russians had nuclear capabilities, and the NVA and VC were both pro Russia,Why were they not given nukes to use against us? In North Korea, why didn't Russia give a nuke to their allies in any of those wars?

Here are my answers to these questions: everyone would know who was behind it, it would just be common sense. The other answer, is that it might be more convenient for their loose ally to use it against them, as it wouldn't have to be transported as far, and they could potentially use it to blackmail their way into getting more, and with that they would be able to gradually take over an entire country.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 44
Programmer
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-02-27 23:16:33 Reply

At 51 minutes ago, Iron-Hampster wrote: Here is a pretty funny bunch of questions for you chaps: If it is possible that these extremist regimes would supply nuclear weapons to rag tag hit and run factions, why haven't we done it? We sided with the Taliban against Russia when they invaded Afghanistan, we helped Bin Laden personally in that war too, why didn't we just slip them a nuclear warhead to use on the Russians?

the arabs over there were plagued with Russian helicopters so we gave them training by the CIA and Stinger missiles thanks to the Human-Rights loving democrats, in this case Charlie Wilson. it also would have been to risky to trust them with a nuke much less Stinger missiles. plus it would have have broken that one Nuclear Treaty back then that would have the precious UN in a uproar. so why not just use a proxy war via using Local rebel forces training them covert like and arm them with shiny that makes those annoying flying things die? (stinger missiles and russian helicopters)

Why is it that the Russians didn't do this to us during the war in Vietnam? The Russians had nuclear capabilities, and the NVA and VC were both pro Russia,Why were they not given nukes to use against us? In North Korea, why didn't Russia give a nuke to their allies in any of those wars?

see above

Here are my answers to these questions: everyone would know who was behind it, it would just be common sense. The other answer, is that it might be more convenient for their loose ally to use it against them, as it wouldn't have to be transported as far, and they could potentially use it to blackmail their way into getting more, and with that they would be able to gradually take over an entire country.

common sense isn't credible proof you are providing Covert resources training and arming pathetic arab farmers by the CIA's SAD. you need video, pictures, testimony by those who participated and they couldn't go to the UN because they made a resolution condeming it by a majority. but the russians were to stupid for that there more torture and then get your answers, then blow shit up in Afghanistan's case.

plus Reagan came in and tore shit up.

Cochises
Cochises
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-02-28 13:19:01 Reply

At 13 hours ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
the arabs over there were plagued with Russian helicopters so we gave them training by the CIA and Stinger missiles thanks to the Human-Rights loving democrats, in this case Charlie Wilson. it also would have been to risky to trust them with a nuke much less Stinger missiles. plus it would have have broken that one Nuclear Treaty back then that would have the precious UN in a uproar. so why not just use a proxy war via using Local rebel forces training them covert like and arm them with shiny that makes those annoying flying things die? (stinger missiles and russian helicopters)

Arabs? What Arabs? The Afghan people are not Arabs. Secondly, the CIA armed the Mujahideen not for "human rights" purposes, they used them to they could fight the Russians dumb ass. They didn't care about defending anyone's nation, for fuck's sake they are destroying the very same nation today.

see above

Dumb ass

common sense isn't credible proof you are providing Covert resources training and arming pathetic arab farmers by the CIA's SAD. you need video, pictures, testimony by those who participated and they couldn't go to the UN because they made a resolution condeming it by a majority. but the russians were to stupid for that there more torture and then get your answers, then blow shit up in Afghanistan's case.

What more proof do you want? Just because you refuse to read or acknowledge the truth doesn't mean it isn't their.

You really are an idiot, you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Just another pathetic ignorant person.

TNT
TNT
  • Member since: Jul. 20, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 11
Musician
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-02-28 14:44:23 Reply

You really are an idiot, you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Just another pathetic ignorant person.

Throwing out insults at another person makes you look more ignorant by comparison.


Latest song cover: Rock Is Dead.
Steam ID: echoes83 (Tyler from Texas)

BBS Signature
Cochises
Cochises
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-02-28 18:28:58 Reply

At 3 hours ago, TNT wrote:
You really are an idiot, you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Just another pathetic ignorant person.
Throwing out insults at another person makes you look more ignorant by comparison.

It might "make" me look more ignorant, but I'm fine with that because I know what I'm talking about.

Wavepad
Wavepad
  • Member since: Jul. 29, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 19
Melancholy
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-02-28 19:29:29 Reply

No wonder they failed


| Steam | Meh |

BBS Signature
San-Diablo
San-Diablo
  • Member since: Feb. 28, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-02-28 19:51:04 Reply

The western world doesn't want nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of nations they do not trust. The Western World wished to stop North Korea. They couldn't. They asked for Pakistan to end it's program. It didn't. It shall ask the same of Iran. And this may yet again end in failure. But I don't see this as a negative. The Americans would like to believe this world is theirs. It is not. They cannot control the many other nations, and they cannot control billions of other men. Yet, they still seek to maintain control over everyone else. Israel has weapons, nuclear in nature. So does India. But unlike Iran, US relations with Israel and other countries aren't so strained. This is a trust issue. The West cannot guess what Iran will do if it does manage to build a bomb. But in the end, we should view this as no more than an act of rebellion, and more importantly self-defense. Iran may not take action, but Israel may. That is the center of the issue

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 44
Programmer
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-02-28 21:27:19 Reply

At 7 hours ago, Cochises wrote:
Arabs? What Arabs? The Afghan people are not Arabs. Secondly, the CIA armed the Mujahideen not for "human rights" purposes, they used them to they could fight the Russians dumb ass. They didn't care about defending anyone's nation, for fuck's sake they are destroying the very same nation today.

sorry but in the afghan-Soviet war many arabs from different countries were the major fighting force against the russians.
saudia arabia, pakistan, afgani arabs and many muslim countries gave support to Afghanistan. charlie wilson did it out of national security and human rights after he first visited to afghanistan. and who cares if we are? they already ruined it.

Dumb ass

name calling real adult.

What more proof do you want? Just because you refuse to read or acknowledge the truth doesn't mean it isn't their.

you need it if you want to justify it before you do anything really stupid like accusing nations of things and retaliate with bombs and gunfire.

You really are an idiot, you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Just another pathetic ignorant person.

I know perfectly well what Im talking about.

right

age: 20
Location: kuwait

makes sense!

Th-e
Th-e
  • Member since: Nov. 2, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-02-28 22:55:00 Reply

Okay, here's my take on Iran and nukes. Complete with a crude video to being the scenario.

TERRORIST ATTACK DESTROYS EMPIRE STATE BUILDING

The rapid destruction of the ESB means that people didn't get a chance to evacuate, so the death toll is even higher than 9/11.

An Al Qaeda affiliate in Iran has claimed responsibility. Now before you go and discuss the Iran Shia and Al Qaeda Sunni hating each other, consider the possibility that they may join together to target America (think Big Jaws on Family Guy and how the regular Jaws decides to team up with the people it was previously attacking due to a common cause).

If we are going to fight against those responsible for destroying the ESB, then we must attack Iran. However, Iran has nukes, and will use them against the United States if attacked.

So either we do nothing and tell Iran "You got us," or we start a nuclear war. And choosing the former means Iran is a permanent terrorist safe haven.

----------------------------------------------------------

So while the nukes may never get used themselves, they make Iran immune to attack and gives it an even greater influence over the rest of the world.

North Korea may not have gained much from its nukes, but Iran has a lot to gain. Therefore, it is critical that we prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.


Feel no mercy for me. It will only cause you to suffer as well.

Cochises
Cochises
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-02-29 02:01:22 Reply

At 4 hours ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
At 7 hours ago, Cochises wrote:
Arabs? What Arabs? The Afghan people are not Arabs. Secondly, the CIA armed the Mujahideen not for "human rights" purposes, they used them to they could fight the Russians dumb ass. They didn't care about defending anyone's nation, for fuck's sake they are destroying the very same nation today.
sorry but in the afghan-Soviet war many arabs from different countries were the major fighting force against the russians.
saudia arabia, pakistan, afgani arabs and many muslim countries gave support to Afghanistan. charlie wilson did it out of national security and human rights after he first visited to afghanistan. and who cares if we are? they already ruined it.

Really? You just named one Arab country out of those countries, Pakistani's are not Arabs, there is no such thing as Afghani Arabs.. What are you talking about? Who ruined Afghanistan? Afghanis? They were a peaceful prosperous nation before the US came and screwed things up.

Dumb ass
name calling real adult.

Yep

What more proof do you want? Just because you refuse to read or acknowledge the truth doesn't mean it isn't their.
you need it if you want to justify it before you do anything really stupid like accusing nations of things and retaliate with bombs and gunfire.

Yeah a quick google search will be enough, plenty of proof.

You really are an idiot, you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Just another pathetic ignorant person.
I know perfectly well what Im talking about.
age: 20
Location: kuwait

makes sense!

Yeah and? I'm pretty sure the information I'm getting is way more trustworthy than that bullshit "free press" you're getting.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 44
Programmer
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-02-29 13:41:32 Reply

At 11 hours ago, Cochises wrote: What are you talking about? Who ruined Afghanistan? Afghanis? They were a peaceful prosperous nation before the US came and screwed things up.

HA! afghanistan cant go 15-20 years without some type of conflict since the 1500s. if it isn't a foreign force trying to take control of the shithole its domestic with factions trying to get or maintain control. just because the russians came and fucked it up with assault helicopters. we just gave those poor innocent villagers a mean to defend themselves. the only thing america is guilty of is the blowback we caused on ourselves for letting OSB and other radicals get control. and we payed for it on 9/11.

Yeah a quick google search will be enough, plenty of proof.

true but the russians moved out due to Mikahail Gorbachev becoming head of the USSR deciding to move out and work on the already failing economy. he also did it on a front to work on the countries Foreign policy and pulling out would be favorable. and since the USSR fell and decided to move out of afghanistan there would be no need to accuse America or they would also have to exlplain there own skeleton of the genocide they committed in afghanistan.

Yeah and? I'm pretty sure the information I'm getting is way more trustworthy than that bullshit "free press" you're getting.

not really at least we have a choice to listen to what media we want to listen to its just the majority of the population listens to the corporate media instead of alternative news sources even though a majority of those can be biased as well and dont get me started on media like Alex jones and the Drudge report.

PsyhcoWalrus
PsyhcoWalrus
  • Member since: Oct. 22, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Musician
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-02-29 20:02:01 Reply

At 2 days ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: yes totally, why not give a Fundamental Islamic government that supports and funds terrorist organizations like hezbollah and Al-Qaeda weapons of mass destruction? nothing wrong could go possibly wrong.

I agree with you on that. It doesn't matter if Iran's leaders know the dangers of nuclear warheads, that's why they'd use them! Think about it, what happens when terrorists get bigger, deadlier weapons? They tend to like to use them. It can never be good. Although they may say they're making them for security reasons, what happens when one of their unfriendly neighbors like the U.S. or Britain try to interfere with Iran's inter-border affairs? I would have to believe that our world we live in with Iran having nuclear weapons....Would not be good.


Neo Classical Shredder

BBS Signature
Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-02-29 20:25:07 Reply

At 21 hours ago, Th-e wrote:
So while the nukes may never get used themselves, they make Iran immune to attack and gives it an even greater influence over the rest of the world.

North Korea may not have gained much from its nukes, but Iran has a lot to gain. Therefore, it is critical that we prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Allowing Terrorist groups in your country to agitate other countries is a bad idea, and it is made worse if you think to support them. Topping that, when nukes are brought into the question it makes it EVEN WORSE. Let's say you are the leader of a country, a group of terrorists to whom you are at first indifferent to and maybe even sympathize with a little move in to your country. These terrorists start shouting threats and hiding behind your nations military and nuclear capabilities and eventually start launching attacks at other nations. These other nations begin to get pissed off and start blaming YOU. These nations then begin to tell you that if you aren't going to deal with these terrorists yourself, THEY will.

If Iran is supporting the terrorists, then that makes the terrorists an extension of Iran and there for, Iran has just as much incentive to distance itself from these loose cannons in a possible nuclear war situation as any other country does. The people of those other countries will get pissed off and create pressure on their leader to do something about it if suddenly shells started flying from your side of the boarder to theirs. That country's leader might decide "that is it, were going to retaliate until you do something about these terrorists behind your boarders, and if you think nuclear war is a better option than doing the right thing, then bring it on". The threat of Nuclear war was used by both sides of the Cuban missile conflict as leverage for each nation to get what it wanted. Eventually, the USSR pulled the missiles out of Cuba but in in return we had to pull some missiles out of Europe for them.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-02-29 21:09:18 Reply

At 37 minutes ago, Iron-Hampster wrote:
At 21 hours ago, Th-e wrote:
So while the nukes may never get used themselves, they make Iran immune to attack and gives it an even greater influence over the rest of the world.

North Korea may not have gained much from its nukes, but Iran has a lot to gain. Therefore, it is critical that we prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Allowing Terrorist groups in your country to agitate other countries is a bad idea, and it is made worse if you think to support them. Topping that, when nukes are brought into the question it makes it EVEN WORSE. Let's say you are the leader of a country, a group of terrorists to whom you are at first indifferent to and maybe even sympathize with a little move in to your country. These terrorists start shouting threats and hiding behind your nations military and nuclear capabilities and eventually start launching attacks at other nations. These other nations begin to get pissed off and start blaming YOU. These nations then begin to tell you that if you aren't going to deal with these terrorists yourself, THEY will.

If Iran is supporting the terrorists, then that makes the terrorists an extension of Iran and there for, Iran has just as much incentive to distance itself from these loose cannons in a possible nuclear war situation as any other country does. The people of those other countries will get pissed off and create pressure on their leader to do something about it if suddenly shells started flying from your side of the boarder to theirs. That country's leader might decide "that is it, were going to retaliate until you do something about these terrorists behind your boarders, and if you think nuclear war is a better option than doing the right thing, then bring it on". The threat of Nuclear war was used by both sides of the Cuban missile conflict as leverage for each nation to get what it wanted. Eventually, the USSR pulled the missiles out of Cuba but in in return we had to pull some missiles out of Europe for them.

Are you seriously saying that a second Cuban missile crisis is better that refusing to give a nation that supports and supplies terrorists nuclear weapons? I ask because if you were being sarcastic I wasn't able to read the sarcasm in you're post and if you're serious then you need to be institutionalized in Arkham Asylum. There were several incidents that very nearly caused a nuclear holocaust and you owe your life to the people who did everything in their power to prevent that from happening including people on both sides who defied direct orders from a superior officer despite the consequences they would face for doing so.

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-01 01:01:59 Reply

At 2 days ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: I think treating them like shit is a better idea,

Riiight, because that never ever leads to the kind of attitude of hatred and animosity that they've been harboring for us for years.

at least it has a chance to demoralize and cripple them like we already have economically.

Doesn't look that crippled to me. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of your usual ignorant saber rattling bullshit.

plus the idea of them putting out primitive atomic weapons is alot worse because primitive weapons are usually more dangerous (exploding on impact, exploding out of nowhere, DIRTY RADIATION, etc.)

Or you know they just go boom over their own atmosphere, or don't fire at all. I also have a hard time believing if they got a bomb they'd farm it out. It seems much more likely to me that if Iran pursued a nuclear program (I say "if" because I want to YET AGAIN point out the only ones who are saying they're doing it is the very biased nation of Israel. The UN and the CIA are turning up nothing on that front) it would be to basically get the US and it's other Western allies off their backs and stop threatening to invade them every couple of years.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
ClickToPlay
ClickToPlay
  • Member since: Jan. 23, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-01 10:33:03 Reply

If you want to ban Iran from even attempting to construct a nuclear bomb, the only right thing to do is set out a draft at whatever irresponsible lobby convention of your choice, and call for the global dismantle of nukes.

Only when everyone agrees can there be a point made.


All Eyez On Me.

BBS Signature
jonnyrules935
jonnyrules935
  • Member since: Feb. 15, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 25
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-01 17:19:39 Reply

I think that speaking on a national level, having nuclear devices is as much a question of international prestige than an actual question of national defense. Iran has to benefit from building nuclear devices based on the principle that no one invades a nuke owning country.

Now this will be extremely tense considering the aggressive nature of Israel towards its neighbors and the fact that they have nuclear weapons themselves, which means that the only way to actually prevent any kind of response from an outside country is to confront the international community with a fait accompli and having nuclear weapons.

Once Iran has nukes, it doesn't become more of a threat than it already is, since it would fall within the rationale of mutually assured destruction towards other nuclear capable countries.

The point is, no matter how hard Israel and the US/UN tries to stop them from gaining nuclear devices, it won't succeed if Iran really wants to build them, and even if they do, it won't change the delicate balance in this region other than forcing the respect of surrounding belligerent countries.

And even though the terrorrism question is an important one, considering how easy it is to simply steal one from either Russia or the US (you heard me), Iran won't have to support any cells wishing to blow up WMDs in urban areas.


Voltaire était un con, les quelques arpents de neiges l'envoient chier !

djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-01 17:45:03 Reply

At 11 minutes ago, jonnyrules935 wrote: I think that speaking on a national level, having nuclear devices is as much a question of international prestige than an actual question of national defense. Iran has to benefit from building nuclear devices based on the principle that no one invades a nuke owning country.

Now this will be extremely tense considering the aggressive nature of Israel towards its neighbors and the fact that they have nuclear weapons themselves, which means that the only way to actually prevent any kind of response from an outside country is to confront the international community with a fait accompli and having nuclear weapons.

Once Iran has nukes, it doesn't become more of a threat than it already is, since it would fall within the rationale of mutually assured destruction towards other nuclear capable countries.

The point is, no matter how hard Israel and the US/UN tries to stop them from gaining nuclear devices, it won't succeed if Iran really wants to build them, and even if they do, it won't change the delicate balance in this region other than forcing the respect of surrounding belligerent countries.

I can't believe this has to be stated twice but here it is. THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS WAS BAD! Mutually assured destruction is not going to end hostilities in the Middle East it will just create more problems. Giving nukes to an extremely hostile nation in the hopes that the dictator will be too sane to use them (because dictators have a long history of sanity and compassion) and unwilling to hand them over to the terrorists that he publicly supports is stupid and crazy. Seriously do some research into how many times the world came within seconds of that doomsday clock hitting 12 before you come back to claim that there are no circumstances under which a nation would use nukes. Also while the U.N. can't stop them from pursuing WMDs it can prevent Iran from acquiring them or take them should Iran manage to build one.

And even though the terrorrism question is an important one, considering how easy it is to simply steal one from either Russia or the US (you heard me), Iran won't have to support any cells wishing to blow up WMDs in urban areas.

If you think it's so easy to steal a nuke from the U.S. just try it. You won't get within a mile of any facility holding WMDs without someone threatening to shoot you and even if by some miracle you did manage to steal one or you got lucky enough to find a lost one you still won't have the activation codes making the weapon useless (assuming the lost one you found hasn't been gone so long that the nuclear material is no longer capable of producing a fission reaction) as well as impossible to move outside the country given the size and conspicuous nature of the bomb. At what point does that seem easy to you?

Sense-Offender
Sense-Offender
  • Member since: May. 16, 2005
  • Online!
Forum Stats
Member
Level 30
Movie Buff
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-01 18:09:48 Reply

No country should have atomic weapons.


one of the four horsemen of the Metal Hell

BBS Signature
Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-02 01:05:11 Reply

At 1 day ago, djack wrote:
Are you seriously saying that a second Cuban missile crisis is better that refusing to give a nation that supports and supplies terrorists nuclear weapons? I ask because if you were being sarcastic I wasn't able to read the sarcasm in you're post and if you're serious then you need to be institutionalized in Arkham Asylum. There were several incidents that very nearly caused a nuclear holocaust and you owe your life to the people who did everything in their power to prevent that from happening including people on both sides who defied direct orders from a superior officer despite the consequences they would face for doing so.

Actually, the stance you take on this issue is more likely to lead to a Cuban missile crisis than mine is. Looking at the history of the Cuban missile crisis, America was found on the wrong side of the Cuban nationalist movement that started because American Imperialism (yes, that is exactly what it was, by definition) was quite oppressive and brought lawlessness to Cubans. Iran also had a very unpopular puppet state forced on them by America, and had it over thrown by radicals as a result.

America then sent troops into Cuba to try and get rid of Castro, but failed, and forced the Cuban dictator to turn to the only person who would help him, Russia. Now you see Iran, who is also surrounded by hostile forces and has an economy that is struggling under them, now those people are foaming around the mouths to invade Iran and get their oil/ "give them democracy"/ "stop them from getting weapons of mass destruction". What is Iran going to do in this situation I wonder? They are probably going to turn to China for help.

And history repeats itself, the world shits it's pants in fear and then nothing happens we all go to bed and do this all over again except to Egypt and only to not learn our lesson all over again.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-02 01:39:45 Reply

At 16 minutes ago, Iron-Hampster wrote: Actually, the stance you take on this issue is more likely to lead to a Cuban missile crisis than mine is. Looking at the history of the Cuban missile crisis, America was found on the wrong side of the Cuban nationalist movement that started because American Imperialism (yes, that is exactly what it was, by definition) was quite oppressive and brought lawlessness to Cubans. Iran also had a very unpopular puppet state forced on them by America, and had it over thrown by radicals as a result.

America then sent troops into Cuba to try and get rid of Castro, but failed, and forced the Cuban dictator to turn to the only person who would help him, Russia. Now you see Iran, who is also surrounded by hostile forces and has an economy that is struggling under them, now those people are foaming around the mouths to invade Iran and get their oil/ "give them democracy"/ "stop them from getting weapons of mass destruction". What is Iran going to do in this situation I wonder? They are probably going to turn to China for help.

And history repeats itself, the world shits it's pants in fear and then nothing happens we all go to bed and do this all over again except to Egypt and only to not learn our lesson all over again.

First of all, I'm not suggesting we invade Iran (Americans have no real taste for war anyways so it would take something huge to convince the public that an invasion is necessary). I'm saying that handing nuclear weapons over to an openly hostile nation is only going to cause problems. Second, if you think that China will place/give nukes to Iran you severely underestimate how much China depends on the U.S. The major nations aren't going to threaten each other with nukes because they have a great deal of power and depend upon each other economically but Iran has far less to lose from using WMDs and thus is more likely to use them. Mutually assured destruction might make them hesitate but there's no guarantee that they won't use a WMD and it's probable that they would supply terrorists with, at the very least, nuclear materials to build their own bombs. Finally, you can't be so sure that nothing will happen. All it takes is one person following their training to, one person who doesn't question orders, one person making one wrong move and suddenly people are dying by the millions because every nation with nuclear weapons gets dragged into war.

SolInvictus
SolInvictus
  • Member since: Oct. 15, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 17
Blank Slate
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-02 01:51:25 Reply

At 7 hours ago, Sense-Offender wrote: No country should have atomic weapons.

that'll be the day. question; has any nuclear armed nation stated its backed down from MAD as a nuclear deterrent?

or is it another "that'll be the day situation"?

VESTRUM BARDUSIS MIHI EXTASUM
Heathenry; it's not for you
"calling atheism a belief is like calling a conviction belief"

BBS Signature
PsyhcoWalrus
PsyhcoWalrus
  • Member since: Oct. 22, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Musician
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-02 07:57:15 Reply

At 4 days ago, Korriken wrote:
At 5 hours ago, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: yes totally, why not give a Fundamental Islamic government that supports and funds terrorist organizations like hezbollah and Al-Qaeda weapons of mass destruction? nothing wrong could go possibly wrong.
nah, certainly a country that funds and arms jihadist groups that are attacking our soldiers overseas and try to attack non muslim civilians (and muslim civilians that are not the right sect) overseas and at home would NEVER slip them a nuclear weapon to smuggle into another country to attack a major city... nah, that would just be unthinkable. They might put on a bomb vest or try to detonate a car full of explosives near a government building, but to take out a large city?.... nah. /sarcasm

I agree with both of you. Even the most evil leaders do know the dangers of using nuclear weapons but many of them see it as an okay thing to do. Remember, they're not your best friend from kindergarten, they're terrorists! They know that nuclear weapons are deadly and produce nuclear dust upon detonation which would likely harm the atmosphere and the existence of the human race in general.

I don't believe the U.S. should get involved with every little nation's affairs, but they should stop Iran from developing their nuclear weapons. It's going to be worse than 9/11 if nobody stops them.


Neo Classical Shredder

BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Iran should have atomic weapons 2012-03-02 09:36:31 Reply

At 3 days ago, Iron-Hampster wrote:
Here is a pretty funny bunch of questions for you chaps: If it is possible that these extremist regimes would supply nuclear weapons to rag tag hit and run factions, why haven't we done it?

1. we would not benefit from it.
2. Back when we backed the Taliban against Russia, it would have been pointless to give the Taliban a nuclear weapon to blow up a city because they were trying to get rid of the Russians, not the people in the cities.

:, we helped Bin Laden personally in that war too, why didn't we just slip them a nuclear warhead to use on the Russians? Why is it that the Russians didn't do this to us during the war in Vietnam? The Russians had nuclear capabilities, and the NVA and VC were both pro Russia,Why were they not given nukes to use against us? In North Korea, why didn't Russia give a nuke to their allies in any of those wars?

irradiating your own lands would be counterproductive. you should know that by now. I'm not sure if you're overlooking something, trolling, or being intellectually dishonest here...

Here are my answers to these questions: everyone would know who was behind it, it would just be common sense. The other answer, is that it might be more convenient for their loose ally to use it against them, as it wouldn't have to be transported as far, and they could potentially use it to blackmail their way into getting more, and with that they would be able to gradually take over an entire country.

Given that Iran is funding them, they have very good reason not to try to blackmail them or try to take over Iran. Iran and the Jihadists have a common enemy, all non Muslims. Iran gives them a sizable portion of their funds, having that cut off would put a large dent in their ability to operate. Also, Iran most likely knows what they are up to and knows where they operate. It wouldn't surprise me if Iran was training them directly.

Either way letting an enemy (and yes Iran is an enemy, not misunderstood, not poor pitiful Iran, no, they work against our interests and must be kept in check) get some sort of leg up on you is never advisable.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.