Should Iran be allowed to create nuclear weapons?

AngryBollix

Seachmall wrote: »

"Hypocritical"?

Jesus Christ...

Yes. Its a clear case of do as I say and dont do as I do

fedor.2.

AngryBollix wrote: »

And how long do they spend on death row beforehand and how much does that cost?

I agree with you, the whole process should be faster. Good point.

AngryBollix

fedor.2. wrote: »

I agree with you, the whole process should be faster. Good point.

Sarcasm really is the lowest form of wit isnt it?

Seachmall

AngryBollix wrote: »

Yes. Its a clear case of do as I say and dont do as I do

Oh, it's absolutely hypocritical. No disagreements.

But Jesus Christ...

stimpson

AngryBollix wrote: »

How?

I mean the Americans will back off. Both India and Pakistan were hit with sanctions when they tested their nukes. After a couple of years it was group hugs all round and back to business.

Once a country actually has nukes you can't attack them.

Elessar

What people seem to forget is that Iranians are not stupid. If they used nuclear weapons in anger they would be obliterated very quickly - they know that. It's called Mutually Assured Destruction.

The biggest reason Israel and the west don't want to see Iran get nukes is because it will upset the balance of power in the middle east. Suddenly the israelis won't be the leader of the pack any more. It would more evenly level the playing field.

Another reason. If Iran gets nukes, everyone else in the middle east will get them and then suddenly we have a new age of nuclear proliferation.

fedor.2.

AngryBollix wrote: »

Sarcasm really is the lowest form of wit isnt it?

I wasn't being sarcastic. I am in total agreement with you.

AngryBollix

Seachmall wrote: »

Oh, it's absolutely hypocritical. No disagreements.

But Jesus Christ...

Jesus christ what?

fedor.2.

AngryBollix wrote: »

Jesus christ what?

Superstar??

AngryBollix

Elessar wrote: »

What people seem to forget is that Iranians are not stupid. If they used nuclear weapons in anger they would be obliterated very quickly - they know that. It's called Mutually Assured Destruction.

The biggest reason Israel and the west don't want to see Iran get nukes is because it will upset the balance of power in the middle east. Suddenly the israelis won't be the leader of the pack any more. It would more evenly level the playing field.

Another reason. If Iran gets nukes, everyone else in the middle east will get them and then suddenly we have a new age of nuclear proliferation.

Its probably beyound the means of many middle east nations though that may not stop them

Morlar

Seachmall wrote: »

..... believe that when facing even the smallest possibility of annihilation: fuck objectivity and fairness, just survive.

Think about what you are saying here, you are saying that Irish survival is somehow linked to either attacking, or invading or through some other means restraining Iran.

It is likely the only way to achieve non-nuclear Iran into perpetuity is a) assasinate scientists leading up to air-raid/smartbomb attack in the short term and b) interference leading up to invasion & occupation in the medium term.

Irish survival is in no way linked to doing or supporting or being involved in any of those things. I know this sounds rude but you sound like someone who has been brainwashed into a frenzy of fear (albeit a relatively calm frenzy for a thursday morn). Seriously though, they have never threatened us anymore than we have threatened Croatia (to pick an example at random). If Croatia joined an anti-Ireland alliance and then declared hostility against us then we would be hostile in their direction. Likewise with Iran, you can not expect them to remain neutral in our direction if we align ourselves directly against them.

Iran, either the Iranian Government or Iranian people have never threatened the people of Ireland.

I think people need to remember that next time they are in the middle of a fox news frenzy.

They are not a threat to us at all. This all sounds like the same sort of pre-attack or pre-invasion rhetoric we see from American and european media everytime an attack or invasion of a country which has not declared war on 'the west' is on the cards.

Seachmall

AngryBollix wrote: »

Jesus christ what?

We're talking about giving a country the ability to kill millions of people at the push of a button and you're worried about looking hypocrticial?

If I ever pull a knife on someone, for any reason, I'm not going to offer them one too in the interest of fairness.

Think about what you are saying here, you are saying that Irish survival is somehow linked to either attacking, or invading or through some other means restraining Iran.

No, I'm saying if asked "Should Iran have nuclear weapons?" I'm going to say "No."

I'm going to say "No." because even if there's the tinciest-weeniest possibilty it could result in my death then I'm not in favour of it.

I'm not pro-war, but I've no problem siding with the guys with the biggest guns.

NinjaK

Sykk wrote: »

I've seen some people argue in other threads that "America is the threat to world peace" and "Leave the Iranians alone, Israel are the real scum" etc etc.

For those of you who are in favor of leaving them alone.

Do you think they should be allowed to create nuclear weapons? You know they hate the western world so much so that they'd probably start firing them in this direction the second they don't start getting their demands?

I for one say no. Whatever about the USA and others having nuclear capabilities... I don't think a country ruled by religion should be given such capabilities. Do you?

What a load of rubbish. First they dont want or need Nuclear weapons. This the the same nonsense that lead to the Iraq war and fools like you are still buying their propaganda.

AngryBollix

Morlar wrote: »

Think about what you are saying here, you are saying that Irish survival is somehow linked to either attacking, or invading or through some other means restraining Iran.

It is likely the only way to achieve non-nuclear Iran into perpetuity is a) assasinate scientists leading up to air-raid/smartbomb attack in the short term and b) interference leading up to invasion & occupation in the medium term.

Irish survival is in no way linked to doing or supporting or being involved in any of those things. I know this sounds rude but you sound like someone who has been brainwashed into a frenzy of fear (albeit a relatively calm frenzy for a thursday morn). Seriously though, they have never threatened us anymore than we have threatened Croatia (to pick an example at random). If Croatia joined an anti-Ireland alliance and then declared hostility against us then we would be hostile in their direction. Likewise with Iran, you can not expect them to remain neutral in our direction if we align ourselves directly against them.

Iran, either the Iranian Government or Iranian people have never threatened the people of Ireland.

I think people need to remember that next time they are in the middle of a fox news frenzy.

They are not a threat to us at all. This all sounds like the same sort of pre-attack or pre-invasion rhetoric we see from American and european media everytime an attack or invasion of a country which has not declared war on 'the west' is on the cards.

This is what seems to be at play here

Elessar

AngryBollix wrote: »

Its probably beyound the means of many middle east nations though that may not stop them

Exactly. Look at Saudi Arabia. An enormously wealthy country, they have the money to get whatever they want and some analysts predict that they could acquire nuclear weapons within a few months if they wanted. I stand to be corrected, but I believe they have already said that if Iran gets nukes, they will follow suit. Then everyone else will want their own deterrent. Where there's a will there's a way.

AngryBollix

Seachmall wrote: »

We're talking about giving a country the ability to kill millions of people at the push of a button and you're worried about looking hypocrticial?

If I ever pull a knife on someone, for any reason, I'm not going to offer them one too in the interest of fairness.

Several countries already have the ability to kill millions of people at the push of a button. Is that a good thing?

Seachmall

AngryBollix wrote: »

Several countries already have the ability to kill millions of people at the push of a button. Is that a good thing?

Of course not, but the last thing we need is more of them.

AngryBollix

Seachmall wrote: »

Of course not, but the last thing we need is more of them.

We need less of them. Ideally none of them but this is never going to happen. The technology now exists and will be used whether people agree with it or not. It will also be used by the people with the will, financial wherewithal and technological expertise.

--Kaiser--

I'm very much in favour of autocratic, bellicose, excessively religious, loola countries being prevented from developing nuclear weapons, thank you very much

Stercus Accidit

Iran would develop nuclear weapons to join the mutually assured destruction club, that is the whole idea of these weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Given the US's frequent invasions and destruction of foreign non-NATO nations since wwII it seems like a reasonable step to take, or Iran becomes the next Iraq. Political sabre rattling by Ahmadnijad (sp?) is the same kind of thing Kin Jung Il engaged in, I doubt these people are mad, but the mad dog act probably keeps their enemies (the ones who invade countries left right and centre) at bay.

AngryBollix

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I'm very much in favour of autocratic, bellicose, excessively religious, loola countries being prevented from developing nuclear weapons, thank you very much

The US already have nuclear weapons

Sykk

NinjaK wrote: »

What a load of rubbish. First they dont want or need Nuclear weapons. This the the same nonsense that lead to the Iraq war and fools like you are still buying their propaganda.

Are you an idiot? They have got nuclear facilities and they are enriching uranium to levels that sole purpose is for weapons... :rolleyes: It's not propaganda, it's fact.

Seachmall

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

Iran would develop nuclear weapons to join the mutually assured destruction club, that is the whole idea of these weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Given the US's frequent invasions and destruction of foreign non-NATO nations since wwII it seems like a reasonable step to take, or Iran becomes the next Iraq. Political sabre rattling by Ahmadnijad (sp?) is the same kind of thing Kin Jung Il engaged in, I doubt these people are mad, but the mad dog act probably keeps their enemies (the ones who invade countries left right and centre) at bay.

And here's the scary part,

The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any rational incentive either to initiate a conflict or to disarm (presuming neither side considers self-destruction an acceptable outcome).

It's a fucked up world when that presumption needs mentioning.

Sykk

AngryBollix wrote: »

The US already have nuclear weapons

You are completely irrational.

No matter what anyone else says, you are not open to discussion, facts or sense. You have your opinion based on anti-American ideals and if America stated that grass was green, you'd call it blue.

No point in talking to you.

AngryBollix

Sykk wrote: »

You are completely irrational.

No matter what anyone else says, you are not open to discussion, facts or sense. You have your opinion based on anti-American ideals and if America stated that grass was green, you'd call it blue.

No point in talking to you.

Do you do this to everyone who has a differing opinion to you?

Or did you save this ejaculation just for me?

suicide_circus

So what are the world-police gonna do? Invade Iran and further radicalize the next two or three generations of Muslims? And the cycle just ****ing goes on and on and millions die and trillions are spent and the only ones smiling are those that profit from war and death. **** yeah!!

Stercus Accidit

Seachmall wrote: »

And here's the scary part,

It's a fucked up world when that presumption needs mentioning.

In fact I doubt Iran would have the M.A.D. capability compared to the US, what they would have is a massive increase in the potential collateral cost of a war against them and a potential loss of support for that war back home when the toll is realised.

I thoroughly believe these wars are profit making machines for businesses who supply the weapons and materiel that is used, as congressional lobbying with money is legal and rampant in the US.

In what other business can you 'create' trillions of dollars in demand in an industry and justify it's expenditure by the tax payer for over a decade other than war?

The whole US political system is screwed up, there is a wilful anti-intellectualism, aggression and a sense of moral right among many of its people, who vote against their own self interests while their taxes are spent by the trillions on the produced goods of their congressman's buddy's who funded them in the first place. It really is crazy.

NinjaK

Sykk wrote: »

Are you an idiot? They have got nuclear facilities and they are enriching uranium to levels that sole purpose is for weapons... :rolleyes: It's not propaganda, it's fact.

Where is you proof they are enriching uranium for weapons purposes? Please provide me with that info and ill leave this thread. Fact is your just a war mongering tool who listens to too much Murdoch news.

wes

There is no evidence they even want them, and there Supreme Leader put a Fatwa against them, its amazing that this is ignored by the West, who love to talk about how they are religously extremem, but when it doesn't suit them they just ignore stuff like there top theocrat saying its against the Religion to build nuclear weapons.

Finally, the current situation where some are allowed to have nuclear weapon, and others are not, is unsustainable. If someone has such weapons someone else will want the same.

thebigbiffo

and the f'ucking 'yes' side is winning. typical of boards and the pinko liberal yet to grow up head up and realise what's good for you mentality that's completely out of touch with the real world.

you want to give nukes to the side that HATES you, your freedoms and everything your society stands for so they can redress the balance of power and pose a continued threat to your way of living.

typical, really typical of the kind of teenage mentality that still prevails around here.

'boards says lets give iran nukes'...jesus :rolleyes:

Sykk

NinjaK wrote: »

Where is you proof they are enriching uranium for weapons purposes? Please provide me with that info and ill leave this thread. Fact is your just a war mongering tool who listens to too much Murdoch news.

Highlights of the IAEA report and UN report

Fact is, you know nothing about me.

Stercus Accidit

thebigbiffo wrote: »

and the f'ucking 'yes' side is winning. typical of boards and the pinko liberal yet to grow up head up and realise what's good for you mentality that's completely out of touch with the real world.

you want to give nukes to the side that HATES you, your freedoms and everything your society stands for so they can redress the balance of power and pose a continued threat to your way of living.

typical, really typical of the kind of teenage mentality that still prevails around here.

'boards says lets give iran nukes'...jesus :rolleyes:

What country do you think you are living in? You sound like a caricature of a raving right wing moron in the US spouting off about commies, that is what the term pinko refers to.

This is the reason people don't agree with you, you sound like a deluded fool who doesn't know what country he is in or who the people he is speaking to are in.

We're in Ireland by the way, and I doubt Iran hates our 'freedoms', our bald eagles or our muscle cars.

Einhard

It's not just about Iran. I'm against all further nuclear proliferation, and I think it's entirely reasonable that other nations who fear a nuclear armed nation should be allowed to impose trade sanctions and the like on that country. I mean, surely nations should be allowed to decide who they will engage with and trade with?

Having said all that, if a nation really desires nuclear weapons then I don't think there should be a military response.

It surprises me though, how many people here who I would have thought to be generally anti-nuclear in general, are entirely supportive of Iran's pursuit of such weapons (or hypothetical pursuit if you're that way inclined). I wonder are some, here and elsewhere, supporting Iran simply because it'll piss America and Israel off?

AngryBollix

Nuclear weapons are here to stay

Sykk

AngryBollix wrote: »

Practice what you preach

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT6n7u99xMsp9QIx3dw6KGqC0ZRylRk_5cnTFuMJYs9_ltjSdYvaijPP4Gk

PS: Nice ninja edit.

AngryBollix

Sykk wrote: »

Highlights of the IAEA report and UN report

Fact is, you know nothing about me.

Yet you feel the need to comment on your perception of "irrationality" among other posters

Doc Ruby

FatherLen wrote: »

nobody should be allowed to create nuclear weapons.

I think every country should have nuclear weapons. It would be the end of war forever. Nobody would dare invade anyone else. After all, it worked to keep the peace between the US and USSR for long enough.

Build more nukes! Even the thickest patriot politician knows there's no ducking the mushroom cloud.

AngryBollix

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I think every country should have nuclear weapons. It would be the end of war forever. Nobody would dare invade anyone else. After all, it worked to keep the peace between the US and USSR for long enough.

Build more nukes! Even the thickest patriot politician knows there's no ducking the mushroom cloud.

But the investment in nuclear weapons eventually led to the economic decline and eventual break up of the ussr (at least in part)

Doc Ruby

AngryBollix wrote: »

But the investment in nuclear weapons eventually led to the break up of the ussr (at least in part)

Two things though - the breakup of the USSR was a lot more complicated than they spent too much on nukes, and how is that a bad thing?

--Kaiser--

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I think every country should have nuclear weapons. It would be the end of war forever. Nobody would dare invade anyone else. After all, it worked to keep the peace between the US and USSR for long enough.

Build more nukes! Even the thickest patriot politician knows there's no ducking the mushroom cloud.

Great plan....until you get one lunatic who presses the bid red button and then POW....end of civilisation as we know it

AngryBollix

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Two things though - the breakup of the USSR was a lot more complicated than they spent too much on nukes, and how is that a bad thing?

I didnt that it was entirely down to their spend on nukes. But it was part of it

thebigbiffo

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

What country do you think you are living in? You sound like a caricature of a raving right wing moron in the US spouting off about commies, that is what the term pinko refers to.

This is the reason people don't agree with you, you sound like a deluded fool who doesn't know what country he is in or who the people he is speaking to are in.

We're in Ireland by the way, and I doubt Iran hates our 'freedoms', our bald eagles or our muscle cars.

right, well w'anker was originally a term used to refer to someone who masturbates - but it can now refer to...well, you get the idea.

you doubt Iran hates our freedoms eh? which freedoms do they love? uncensored internet? womens rights? the right to protest? the list is endless here buddy - if you can't get your head around iran being idealogically opposed to almost everything we hold dear then you best move there, because you're best out of this here gene pool and that's a fact.

it's pointless trying to reason with people who are so blind. here's news: life aint all love, peace and fuzzy pink stuff - there are people out there who hate your way of life and would think nothing about destroying it. and you want to give them nukes

baaaahhhaaahhhaaaaaaaahhhaaaahhaaaa

*coughs splutters and retreats back to my baptist church

Doc Ruby

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Great plan....until you get one lunatic who presses the bid red button and then POW....end of civilisation as we know it

If the loonies in Pakistan can have nukes there shouldn't be too much of a problem with anyone else to be honest.

I think there's an overestimation of just how mad some of these guys are, the Iranian leadership mostly control major industries in the country - they are very rich indeed. The threats and posturing are just that, empty wind.

Just think about it, China throwing shapes in the far east - done. US invasions everywhere - finished. You could wind down most armed forces to 10% of their former size and put the money towards research or health programs. Paradise.

Pax Atomica.

Einhard

AngryBollix wrote: »

We need less of them. Ideally none of them but this is never going to happen. The technology now exists and will be used whether people agree with it or not. It will also be used by the people with the will, financial wherewithal and technological expertise.

Do you support Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons (or the hypothetical pursuit...)? Does that not fly in the face of yearning for less nuclear weapons in the world? Is that not then entirely hypocritical?

NinjaK wrote: »

Where is you proof they are enriching uranium for weapons purposes? Please provide me with that info and ill leave this thread. Fact is your just a war mongering tool who listens to too much Murdoch news.

Eh...the title of the thread is "Should Iram be allowed to create nuclear weapons"? Probably not surprising then that people discuss that possibility. Being the question posed in the thread and all...

wes wrote: »

There is no evidence they even want them, and there Supreme Leader put a Fatwa against them, its amazing that this is ignored by the West, who love to talk about how they are religously extremem, but when it doesn't suit them they just ignore stuff like there top theocrat saying its against the Religion to build nuclear weapons.

Yeah wes...the whole thing is a big conspiracy dreamed up by the US and Israel...and every nation in the European Union...

So that's, what? 30 independent nations all colluding in this conspiracy theory?

I think you're incredibly naive if you think Ayatollah Khamenei is not capable of any degree of duplicity- that when he says Iran is against nuclear weapons, then Iran is really against nuclear weapons.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, and much of it is objective. I think that you know that as well as I do but you ignore it because it doesn't suit your purposes.

In the next few years, Iran will likely have nuclear weapons. It's not something I relish- it will have a dramatic impact on the balance of power in the Middle East, and not necessarily for the better. However, it's not something I think there should be war over. Containment, I think, could be very effectively pursued against Iran.

However, the theme of double standards arises yet again. We have people on this thread, avoewdly pacifists or at least anti-nuclear, happily supporting Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. We have obviously intelligent people simply declaring that Iran is not after such weapons, and declaring that there is no evidence for this, when it is clear that the evidence on offer paints a somewhat different picture, and is, at the least, far less clear cut.

I realise that there are double standards on both sides so you don't need to point them out, but it just strikes me as odd that those who are most against militarisation in threads like this are always the most in favour of Iran gaining nuclear weapons. It sometimes seems that, as long as a nation pisses Israel or the US off, then everything they do is A-OK! The enemy of my enemy is my friend kind of thing.

Finally, the current situation where some are allowed to have nuclear weapon, and others are not, is unsustainable. If someone has such weapons someone else will want the same.

Yes...but that doesn't mean gaining such weapons should be made to look like a walk in the park. If we were to take this logic then, at the very least, Libya, Iraq, and South Africa would have had nuclear wespons by now. Is that the kind of world you want? Where gaining nuclear wespons is simply a matter of resouces? Where there is no effort to stop proliferation? Where the Nuclear proliferation treaty is merely a scrap of paper? Seems an odd stance for someone I would have thought was against increased militarisation of the world.

PS: Iran is a signatory to the NPT and has been found to be in breach of its obligations therein.

wes

Einhard wrote: »

Yeah wes...the whole thing is a big conspiracy dreamed up by the US and Israel...and every nation in the European Union...

Way to miss the pont I was making. The West ignores facts when it doesn't suit them, and we have seen this happen multiple times in the past. Also, plenty of nation involved in the Iraq debacle, with plenty of lies being told there, so let not pretend we haven't seen this thing before.

Einhard wrote: »

So that's, what? 30 independent nations all colluding in this conspiracy theory?

Plenty of nations colluded in the war of aggression against Iraq, so pefectly possible for this war mongering to repeat itself.

Einhard wrote: »

I think you're incredibly naive if you think Ayatollah Khamenei is not capable of any degree of duplicity- that when he says Iran is against nuclear weapons, then Iran is really against nuclear weapons.

When, he says it in a Fatwa, its rather different. As the West loves to point out they are Religous regime, so they tend to take such thing very seriously. So you can't have it both ways imho, either they take this relgious stuff seriously or they don't.

Einhard wrote: »

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, and much of it is objective. I think that you know that as well as I do but you ignore it because it doesn't suit your purposes.

The only evidence comes from pre-2003, and even the US inteligence estimate have said they don't have an active program. Seems to me that a lot of people like to ignore that fact, like your doing as it doesn't suit you.

Simply put there is no evidence of an active Iranian nuclear weapons program. There may have been one pre-2003, but none right now. Sorry, but this is just the same old war mongering rhetoric we see time and again and nothing more. I see no reason why any one would believe the exact same lies again.

AngryBollix

Einhard wrote: »

Do you support Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons (or the hypothetical pursuit...)? Does that not fly in the face of yearning for less nuclear weapons in the world? Is that not then entirely hypocritical?

In an ideal world nuclear weapons would not be a threat to anyone. However, we dont live in an ideal world. If the technology and will exists to create nuclear weapons then they will be created and stockpiled.

Its not really the pursuit of nuclear weapons hat we should be worried about. Its their use. Whe the use of them becomes a realistic proposition then its time to worry

My name is URL

I don't personally believe that they are capable of or interested in developing nuclear weapons. It's classic willy waving imo. Having said that, I don't think they or any other nation should have 'the bomb'. Though there's an argument that could be made that by developing a nuclear program; some stability would be brought to the middle east. And let's face facts; statistically, Iran are far less likely to use either atomic or conventional weapons against another country than the US is. They don't have much of a history of engaging in international warfare.

Doc Ruby

Einhard wrote: »

If we were to take this logic then, at the very least, Libya, Iraq, and South Africa would have had nuclear wespons by now.

South Africa did have nuclear weapons.

AngryBollix

Shouldnt fukushima and chernobyl serves as reminders to everyone the power of what can happen?

storker

AngryBollix wrote: »

If you are excusing the use of nuclear weapons by the us why should anyone else be any different?

Well, there's a little diference like...they aren't fighting WW2.

Stork