Iran and the Bomb

[sandandfoam]

I was reading about the upcoming vote in the UN about imposing sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.

Is the aim of their program a nuclear weapon?

When America has the Bomb why shouldn't Iran?

 

[Peacewise]

Well it's quite simple. If a country has nuclear weapons then that country has a greater degree of security from American invasion.

 

[kai]

I was reading about the upcoming vote in the UN about imposing sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.

Is the aim of their program a nuclear weapon?

When America has the Bomb why shouldn't Iran?

I think the aim of Iran is to have a nuclear weapon,I think the current administration wishes to become a superpower in the region.

I think any government that hangs homosexuals and children from cranes couldn't be trusted with a weapon of mass destruction.

 

[Caladan]

When America has the Bomb why shouldn't Iran?

Don't be a child stephen. its not in the interest of the Western world that a third world theocracy should aquire the bomb. this isnt a fair game, what possible reason should the world have for letting an Islamist theocracy develop nuclear arms?

 

[Revoltingest]

I think the aim of Iran is to have a nuclear weapon,I think the current administration wishes to become a superpower in the region.

I think any government that hangs homosexuals and children from cranes couldn't be trusted with a weapon of mass destruction.

It isn't about trust.
It's about a country which feels the need to have this weapon. Israel, Pakistan, India, China, etc feel the need, so
they have the bomb. Iran is no different. If you judge them morally unfit to have nukes, so are the others in this club.
Consider that Israel, a nuclear power, openly talks of pre-emptive invasion of Iran with US tacit approval. It should be
expected that Iran would want the bomb. I'd prefer nuclear disarmament, but that won't happen.

 

[kai]

It isn't about trust.
It's about a country which feels the need to have this weapon. Israel, Pakistan, India, China, etc feel the need, so
they have the bomb. Iran is no different. If you judge them morally unfit to have nukes, so are the others in this club.
Consider that Israel, a nuclear power, openly talks of pre-emptive invasion of Iran with US tacit approval. It should be
expected that Iran would want the bomb. I'd prefer nuclear disarmament, but that won't happen.

therefore?

you have no objections to Iran having the bomb?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It isn't about trust.
It's about a country which feels the need to have this weapon. Israel, Pakistan, India, China, etc feel the need, so
they have the bomb. Iran is no different. If you judge them morally unfit to have nukes, so are the others in this club.
Consider that Israel, a nuclear power, openly talks of pre-emptive invasion of Iran with US tacit approval. It should be
expected that Iran would take this course.

First things first: the bomb is evil and no one should have it. The awful thing about the bomb is that the intention is to wipe out the civilian population and not the military. It also completely ruins the land.

By making the land of one's enemy a wasteland, the entire point of war is forgone. The whole point of war is killing people and taking their stuff. When a country is ready to use the Bomb, they have already expressed the willingness to give up all of their enemy's resources.

America and Russia - while threatening eachother - both had a very tight grip on who could launch nuclear weapons, how they were stored, and the rhetoric used in the Cold War from national leaders.

Being a dictatorship, Iran needs only one madman to annihilate great portions of the Middle East.

 

[Revoltingest]

First things first: the bomb is evil and no one should have it. The awful thing about the bomb is that the intention is to wipe out the civilian population and not the military. It also completely ruins the land.

By making the land of one's enemy a wasteland, the entire point of war is forgone. The whole point of war is killing people and taking their stuff. When a country is ready to use the Bomb, they have already expressed the willingness to give up all of their enemy's resources.

America and Russia - while threatening eachother - both had a very tight grip on who could launch nuclear weapons, how they were stored, and the rhetoric used in the Cold War from national leaders.

Being a dictatorship, Iran needs only one madman to annihilate great portions of the Middle East.

I agree somewhat. The bomb's usual purpose is only to threaten to lay waste to one's foe. This MAD strategy is supposed to prevent
using the bomb. As for Iran being a dictatorship, yes, that's a problem, but danger can lurk in a democracy too. Israel looks even
more dangerous than Iran to me. Religious impairment is a bigger problem than how one's leader is selected.

 

[Revoltingest]

therefore?

you have no objections to Iran having the bomb?

My objections are broader....I'd rather see no one with it.
I only speak to Iran's justifications being no less reasonable from their perspective than anyone else's.

 

[sandandfoam]

First things first: the bomb is evil and no one should have it. The awful thing about the bomb is that the intention is to wipe out the civilian population and not the military. It also completely ruins the land.

:clap Spot on.

I think the situation re Iran highlights the urgency of of nuclear disarmament.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

My objections are broader....I'd rather see no one with it.
I only speak to Iran's justifications being no less reasonable from their perspective than anyone else's.

Are you seriously considering that placing a Bomb in the hands of a madman is the same as having them stored by a sane one?

 

[Caladan]

I agree somewhat. The bomb's usual purpose is only to threaten to lay waste to one's foe. This MAD strategy is supposed to prevent
using the bomb. As for Iran being a dictatorship, yes, that's a problem, but danger can lurk in a democracy too. Israel looks even
more dangerous than Iran to me. Religious impairment is a bigger problem than how one's leader is selected.

Israel has proved itself highly disciplined and restrained about its nuclear arsenal, when Syria and Egypt attacked Israel in October 73 in a surprise attack which posed an existential threat to Israel, some analysts were worried that Israel will turn to a last resort- namely its nuclear arsenal, but it didnt, instead, disciplined Israeli reservists, who left their civil careers behind went into the Sinai peninsula and the Golan Heights and forced order on the two fronts which were infested with Egyptian and Syrian forces. that is to say, that normal Israeli citizens, who have daily jobs unrelated to the military, went into the two fronts and pushed back the enemy forces physically in a bloody war, Israel was willing to put the lives of its best citizens on the line, and not use the bomb.

 

[sandandfoam]

Don't be a child stephen. its not in the interest of the Western world that a third world theocracy should aquire the bomb. this isnt a fair game, what possible reason should the world have for letting an Islamist theocracy develop nuclear arms?

Why the condescension?
It isn't in the interest of humanity that anyone has a nuclear weapon.

 

[Caladan]

Further more, the net is crawling with high profile articles, some of which by strategic analysts from Arab countries about how Israel is the nuclear power which imposes security on the Sunni Muslim world of the middle east from the threat of the rising Shia crescent in Iran.

 

[Caladan]

Why the condescension?
It isn't in the interest of humanity that anyone has a nuclear weapon.

Do you think citzens around the world dont know that? and your solution is, what? trying to balance out the nuclear power play by letting an oppressive third world society with religious fanatics aquire the bomb?

 

[sandandfoam]

Do you think citzens around the world dont know that? and your solution is, what? trying to balance out the nuclear power play by letting an oppressive third world society with religious fanatics aquire the bomb?

When did I say that?

My opinion is that if the major powers were actively disarming they would have some mortal authority.

 

[Caladan]

When did I say that?

My opinion is that if the major powers were actively disarming they would have some mortal authority.

Then just state it, instead of using outdated slogans that sound as if they were taken out of the 60's, 'if the US has it why cant Iran'? this isnt serious.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you seriously considering that placing a Bomb in the hands of a madman is the same as having them stored by a sane one?

I question your assumptions behind that question.
1) I don't believe that Iran is any more "mad" than some of the other nuclear powers (eg, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea).
2) I am not "placing a bomb" in anyone's hands. Iran is doing this (presumably) without my help.
3) I don't want to see the spread of nuclear weapons.
4) I don't trust my own country to decide who gets to go nuclear & who must be attacked in order to prevent their going nuclear.

My central point was that Iran's reasons for going nuclear are no worse than anyone else's. I'll add that if the US & Israel are ready to attack Iran in order to stop them, that this will be foolish. Leaders have little imagination regarding how their plans will go catastrophically awry. I favor more honest diplomacy & less foreign adventurism. After all, our problems with Iran stem largely from our interference in their gov't & our support of Zionism. Running roughshod over lesser countries has not served us well.

 

[sandandfoam]

Then just state it, instead of using outdated slogans that sound as if they were taken out of the 60's, 'if the US has it why cant Iran'? this isnt serious.

Breathe in and out friend. To the best of my knowledge I wasn't using a slogan - I don't think the US or Israel, Britain or France can claim moral superiority on this issue as they have nuclear arms that they intend keeping. If the US has arms why can't Iran seems a valid point to my mind.

 

[Caladan]

Breathe in and out friend.

You know me, Im as calm as always.

To the best of my knowledge I wasn't using a slogan - I don't think the US or Israel, Britain or France can claim moral superiority on this issue as they have nuclear arms that they intend keeping. If the US has arms why can't Iran seems a valid point to my mind.

Moral superiority?
this isnt about moral superiority, this is about superiority. period.