Why Iran needs the Nuke

[Alyakia]

No. It did exist. All I can find is Cash and Carry though.

The solution to "they hate us because we've been dicks constantly" is not to say "well! they might still hate us if we stop! may as well continue to be dicks!".

Even if we didn't have the largest oil reserves in the EU, didn't export electricity (not necessarily UK wide here) and weren't investing in renewable energy I still probably wouldn't be peeing myself over Iran turning a comically oversized wheel and stopping all the oilz.

That's a non-issue. There is no solution to getting Iran to like you, other than immediately switching your position and supporting it in everything it does. If you support Iran's nuclear claim, it really won't matter after that. It's not about Iran cutting off the oil. If you think that that's the primary worry here, you're quite mistaken. It's about enforcing the current economic status. If Iran gets a nuke, Saudi arabia will want one too. Guess what happens, they won't need their US allies anymore. Or repeat the same for Egypt.

Without the need of the US as allies, maybe they close the suez canal. Now trade in the World is slowed a gigaton. Hundreds of billions of dollars lost. Millions of jobs lost. The middle east becomes a powder keg. Proxy wars break out all over the place. Maybe they bomb an embassy or two. Maybe they drive a nuke into France, because France banned the veil. The current status of the Middle East is as fantastic as you can get it. By allowing it to change, your allowing Iran to directly change the current course.

""All is forgiven Britain. We won't stop your oil."

ok

how much do you know about the suez crisis because this is hilariously ironic

yes. they might nuke france because france banned the veil. scary scary muslims booga booga.

[Costa Fiero]

"Rogue Nation" is a meaningless buzzword, since the only consistent definition is "not currently serving American interests."

Actually, rogue nation can be applied to any state given the contents of the actions of the government there. People could quite effectively argue that Israel is as much of a rogue state as North Korea.

[Alyakia]

I'm more mystified that people believe in a concept as ridiculous as "fairness" in international relations. It is against our interests for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, therefore we should act to prevent them from getting one. Similarly, it would be in our interests to overthrow the Iranian government and replace it with a pro-US regime, much like we did in 1953 were such a thing possible. Moral and ethical considerations are simply irrelevant, what matters is acting in a way that is most strategically beneficial to the power and influence of the USA. Like it or not, that's the way it works and that's the way all of its power players have acted in the entire history of international diplomacy and ever will act.

I blame the liberalizing mentality of "Everybody Should Be Equal."

It's leading to the death of society, because we can't honestly use our heads and think that if someone else has the advantage, then we're in the inferior position. Competition is necessary. It's part of the human fiber. Yet, we so eagerly suppress in favor of ideas that we should be economically equal and fair. People confuse individual rights with national rights.

could you and vetalia describe your political philosophies please

[Myrensis]

Actually, rogue nation can be applied to any state given the contents of the actions of the government there. People could quite effectively argue that Israel is as much of a rogue state as North Korea.

Well yes, that would be the practical and actually useful definition, but in terms of modern political and diplomatic discourse, "Not nice to America" is the only real notable criteria for declaring a nation to be "rogue".

[Ralkovia]

That's a non-issue. There is no solution to getting Iran to like you, other than immediately switching your position and supporting it in everything it does. If you support Iran's nuclear claim, it really won't matter after that. It's not about Iran cutting off the oil. If you think that that's the primary worry here, you're quite mistaken. It's about enforcing the current economic status. If Iran gets a nuke, Saudi arabia will want one too. Guess what happens, they won't need their US allies anymore. Or repeat the same for Egypt.

Without the need of the US as allies, maybe they close the suez canal. Now trade in the World is slowed a gigaton. Hundreds of billions of dollars lost. Millions of jobs lost. The middle east becomes a powder keg. Proxy wars break out all over the place. Maybe they bomb an embassy or two. Maybe they drive a nuke into France, because France banned the veil. The current status of the Middle East is as fantastic as you can get it. By allowing it to change, your allowing Iran to directly change the current course.

""All is forgiven Britain. We won't stop your oil."

ok

how much do you know about the suez crisis because this is hilariously ironic

yes. they might nuke france because france banned the veil. scary scary muslims booga booga.

The fact that you're patronizing my fears as being unfounded in anyway, shows you're woefully unaware of history or geopolitics, but I'll put it in a way you can understand.

how much do you know about Suez Crisis, because this is very very sad to me.

Yes, they a terrorist organization might nuke some country for any list of reasons. Scary scary wahhabist booga booga.

[EnragedMaldivians]

It's really and truly sad, that people are just so anti-US, that they would rather support a nation that has on several occassions promised the destruction of another nation the tools to carry it out.

Unlike the internet, the World isn't a pocket of bubbles. Everything is interlinked. Giving Iran a nuclear weapon doesn't just affect the US. It affects you and billions of people world wide.

I'm more mystified that people believe in a concept as ridiculous as "fairness" in international relations. It is against our interests for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, therefore we should act to prevent them from getting one. Similarly, it would be in our interests to overthrow the Iranian government and replace it with a pro-US regime, much like we did in 1953 were such a thing possible. Moral and ethical considerations are simply irrelevant, what matters is acting in a way that is most strategically beneficial to the power and influence of the USA. Like it or not, that's the way it works and that's the way all of its power players have acted in the entire history of international diplomacy and ever will act.

I believe in realpolitik where it's necessary and would probably describe myself as a realist but it's simply not true that moral and ethical considerations have no bearing on foreign policy (a sociopathic position that I doubt even the likes of Henry Morganthau would cling to).

Would you rather the United States had continued to support the apartheid government in South Africa if it were in their economic or whatever interests to have done so?

[Alyakia]

""All is forgiven Britain. We won't stop your oil."

ok

how much do you know about the suez crisis because this is hilariously ironic

yes. they might nuke france because france banned the veil. scary scary muslims booga booga.

The fact that you're patronizing my fears as being unfounded in anyway, shows you're woefully unaware of history or geopolitics, but I'll put it in a way you can understand.

how much do you know about Suez Crisis, because this is very very sad to me.

Yes, they a terrorist organization might nuke some country for any list of reasons. Scary scary wahhabist booga booga.

that doesn't really answer my question about how much you know about the suez crisis ):

no. really. iran getting a nuke will not lead to iran/saudi arabia/egypt nuking france for banning the veil.

[Vetalia]

could you and vetalia describe your political philosophies please

I'm a mix of things; on one hand I respect and support freedom, individual rights, and free market capitalism but on the other hand I also recognize this world is chock full of potential rivals that are more than willing to challenge our influence and as a result we need to do what is necessary to preserve it for the good of our nation. I guess you could call me a nationalist.

That being said, I am a hard realist in international diplomacy, which means strategic considerations for the good of my nation and its international influence take primacy over my personal political beliefs. If being nice and fair fits our objectives, we do that, and if not we do that as well.

[Ralkovia]

I'm more mystified that people believe in a concept as ridiculous as "fairness" in international relations. It is against our interests for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, therefore we should act to prevent them from getting one. Similarly, it would be in our interests to overthrow the Iranian government and replace it with a pro-US regime, much like we did in 1953 were such a thing possible. Moral and ethical considerations are simply irrelevant, what matters is acting in a way that is most strategically beneficial to the power and influence of the USA. Like it or not, that's the way it works and that's the way all of its power players have acted in the entire history of international diplomacy and ever will act.

I believe in realpolitik where it's necessary and would probably describe myself as a realist but it's simply not true that moral and ethical considerations have no bearing on foreign policy (a sociopathic position that I doubt even the likes of Henry Morganthau would cling to).

Would you rather the United States had continued to support the apartheid government in South Africa if it were in their economic or whatever interests to do so?

Yes, if the anti-apartheid movement was a pro-commie organization or would have been against US interests, then I'd have supported the Apartheid government. Moral and ethical considerations must take a back seat if they would completely decimate our position in an argument. If there are alternatives take them, however to make arguments wholly on moral and ethical considerations is generally bad idea.

[North Calaveras]

could you and vetalia describe your political philosophies please

I'm a mix of things; on one hand I respect and support freedom, individual rights, and free market capitalism but on the other hand I also recognize this world is chock full of potential rivals that are more than willing to challenge our influence and as a result we need to do what is necessary to preserve it for the good of our nation. I guess you could call me a nationalist.

That being said, I am a hard realist in international diplomacy, which means strategic considerations for the good of my nation and its international influence take primacy over my personal political beliefs. If being nice and fair fits our objectives, we do that, and if not we do that as well.

hey were pretty similar

[Common Territories]

So let me get this strait. You want to give a rouge nation a nuclear bomb? One that constantly threatens other countries, fully supports and aids terrorism, and main goal is not only to kill Israel but kill every other western country? Are you kidding me?

The US and other countries have it because they are actually responsible enough to not want to use it. Only Pakistan is a bad nuke holder, a big mistake thanks to the US. The US made the nuke to end a war faster and it has regretted it ever since then. The main point is that the US, France, Britain, Russia, and other possessors are responsible nations that ether wouldn't use them nor do they ever want too. Iran is a completely different story. Iran says it just wants nuclear power but it's dead obvious they want nukes just to be feared more. There is even a good chance they want it to just bomb its enemies to the maximum. Their excuses and reasons are all bull crap, "We just want nuclear power for electricity.", ''We need it as a deterrence of attack.", "We feel threatened and desperately need it." ect. You wanna know what will happen as soon as they get the ability to produce nuclear bombs? Israel and other countries will be bombed no doubt, every other nation in the area and possibly world will want them too, terrorists will be given nuclear weapons by the Iranian government (their main supporter and backer).

So can you live with the possibility of Iran bombing Israel and other countries? Wide spread nuclear technology for any crack pot thanks to Iran selling the tech? Terrorists armed with nuclear weapons? How will you react when instead of Iran just threatening to destroy the west, it turns into "We will destroy the west with our powerful nuclear arms!" instead of just using some new lame missile they come up with every few months? You give that government nuclear weapons and your signing the death warrant for hundreds of millions of people.

It's really and truly sad, that people are just so anti-US, that they would rather support a nation that has on several occassions promised the destruction of another nation the tools to carry it out.

Unlike the internet, the World isn't a pocket of bubbles. Everything is interlinked. Giving Iran a nuclear weapon doesn't just affect the US. It affects you and billions of people world wide.

That's what I said, or at least tried to say. I didn't make a full list or anything because im not going to list out 30+ nations that will be in immediate danger. The fact is that they will not only hurt US lives but Israeli, Muslim, European, and many others if they use the weapons. But that's only one possible way they could use the weapon.

[AiliailiA]

Your opinion on this?

Um, it's a controversial topic and I'm logging off soon so I can't really address your OP in detail, but I will say this:

The way you footnoted your OP with links, instead of putting the links inline, impresses me very much. I will do that in future. Wikipedia style!

I guess I should comment somewhat on the thread subject: I would rather that Iran NOT develop nuclear weapons (in the sense that no country should have them) but beyond diplomatic means and some diplomatic sanctions (ie, directed at their leadership not the country as a whole) I wouldn't do anything to stop them arming themselves that way. No current nuclear power has any moral authority to prohibit that, because they all took that step when they had the capability and felt the need to do so. Economic sanctions on Iran are unjustified, and military means to prevent Iran gaining nuclear capabilities would be an act of war: an aggressive act of war.

[Ralkovia]

The fact that you're patronizing my fears as being unfounded in anyway, shows you're woefully unaware of history or geopolitics, but I'll put it in a way you can understand.

how much do you know about Suez Crisis, because this is very very sad to me.

Yes, they a terrorist organization might nuke some country for any list of reasons. Scary scary wahhabist booga booga.

that doesn't really answer my question about how much you know about the suez crisis ):

no. really. iran getting a nuke will not lead to iran/saudi arabia/egypt nuking france for banning the veil.

There is no answer to "how much I know about the Suez canal." I know enough about it that makes me reasonably informed, however if you hold a degree of some sort in history, especially with specialization in Modern History in the Middle East Region. Then I'll be more than willing to listen to you. However, at this point I'm going to make the assumption that your either in a university or still in school.

[Vetalia]

I believe in realpolitik where it's necessary and would probably describe myself as a realist but it's simply not true that moral and ethical considerations have no bearing on foreign policy (a sociopathic position that I doubt even the likes of Henry Morganthau would cling to).

Would you rather the United States had continued to support the apartheid government in South Africa if it were in their economic or whatever interests to have done so?

If we had to out of urgent strategic considerations, yes. Same reason why we backed Mobutu despite his government's often violent and ethnically motivated actions towards minorities in Zaire.

On the other hand, I also realize that doing so would cause incredible damage to our image and alienate the overwhelming majority of black Africans and their states (as well as the many white Africans who were opposed to apartheid), so it doesn't make the least sense to sacrifice an entire continent to back a single regime, one whose ideology was already on the wane no less. So, on that basis I wouldn't support continued backing of the apartheid government.

[Len Hyet]

See, a valid reason that Iran shouldn't get the nuke is because Iran doesn't have the recourses or wherewithal to protect the device. Should al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Force 17, or any number of other terrorist organizations ask for a weapon from Iran, I do not believe that they would refuse, or that they would be willing or able to defend it if one such organization tried to take it.

[Ralkovia]

I believe in realpolitik where it's necessary and would probably describe myself as a realist but it's simply not true that moral and ethical considerations have no bearing on foreign policy (a sociopathic position that I doubt even the likes of Henry Morganthau would cling to).

Would you rather the United States had continued to support the apartheid government in South Africa if it were in their economic or whatever interests to have done so?

If we had to out of urgent strategic considerations, yes. On the other hand, I also realize that doing so would cause incredible damage to our image and alienate the overwhelming majority of black Africans and their states (as well as the many white Africans who were opposed to apartheid), so it doesn't make the least sense to sacrifice an entire continent to back a single regime.

That is a consideration I had not though of.

[Episarta]

Yes, let us allow a theocratic dictatorship, one that has constantly made outrageous threats and statements, obtain nuclear weaponry. That would be the best thing for such an unstable region. Obviously.


Not that I really support Israel and what they do either, but at least they can be controlled to an extent.


Or wait, what about this third option? We give all nations in that region access to as many nuclear arms as they want and let them work it out themselves. Might not end well, but at least the ride will be fun while it lasts.


And on an even more serious note: Do we really want a bunch of brown people in control of a nuclear device? We already have the Indians and Pakistanis, and we even let the yellows have it. What's next? Black!?

[Caninope]

*snip*

Egypt hates America (the Clinton visit), Israel has more than a few American politicians in their hands, and the Saudis need America to stay in power. That's not keeping each other in line. Iran needs the ability to keep both Saudi Arabia (nobody wants to attack Saudi Arabia, merely make sure they're not only pandering to U.S interests) and Israel in check.

No, they keep each other in check. You don't honestly think that Israel really has free reign, do you?

Oh you so funny. Keeping stability means inciting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Afghanistan, we didn't incite and yes, it has helped the system stay stable. Iraq was a deviation from the standard realist American policy into a naive neoconservative policy.

Keeping stability means forcing Chavez to nationalize oil to keep the U.S from robbing them blind?

Chavez did that because he was butthurt that the oil industry was striking under him. While US corporations did have growing interests in the Venezuelan oil industry, it protected the government, if anything.

Keeping stability means purposely keeping Korea apart so the U.S can sell our nation crap?

That's not why there are two Koreas, and you know it.

Keeping stability means killing national leaders and not respecting the sovereignty of nations?

Possibly.

Or listening to the U.N for once?

Anything important that happens in the UN happens in the Security Council. We nip it in the bud. We don't disobey the UN.

Keeping stability means denying funding to UNESCO because they support helping Palestinians?

Generally. Not every action we do will necessarily make the system more stable.

If it wasn't for the U.S being a not so bad place to live (even that's going away)

So that's why we're so high on the UN HDI and OECD Better Life Index!

and them formally being technological pioneers,

Formerly a technological pioneer? That would imply we're not one now. Oh, you so funny.

I would say the U.S is the most evil nation on the planet.

As opposed to the DPRK. Right...

[Alyakia]

See, a valid reason that Iran shouldn't get the nuke is because Iran doesn't have the recourses or wherewithal to protect the device. Should al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Force 17, or any number of other terrorist organizations ask for a weapon from Iran, I do not believe that they would refuse, or that they would be willing or able to defend it if one such organization tried to take it.

protestors in rowing boats row into faslane occassionaly

there are cases of our nuclear submarines being vandalized and one case of someone sitting on it and riding it like a horse

i mean

just for comparison

[Alyakia]

See, a valid reason that Iran shouldn't get the nuke is because Iran doesn't have the recourses or wherewithal to protect the device. Should al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Force 17, or any number of other terrorist organizations ask for a weapon from Iran, I do not believe that they would refuse, or that they would be willing or able to defend it if one such organization tried to take it.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2004/05/291152.jpg

this is carrying nuclear warheads

[EnragedMaldivians]

If we had to out of urgent strategic considerations, yes. On the other hand, I also realize that doing so would cause incredible damage to our image and alienate the overwhelming majority of black Africans and their states (as well as the many white Africans who were opposed to apartheid), so it doesn't make the least sense to sacrifice an entire continent to back a single regime.

That is a consideration I had not though of.

So, from an instrumental point of view would you be willing to concede that acting unethically on the world stage could have a detrimental effect on your world image? And hence that maybe tempering an excessive disposition towards cynical "realpolitik', with moral considerations (for purely instrumental reasons at bottom), is more prudent in the long run?

I mean, it's not like memories of Mossadeq are helping America's negotiations with Iran.

[Caninope]

I'm more mystified that people believe in a concept as ridiculous as "fairness" in international relations. It is against our interests for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon, therefore we should act to prevent them from getting one. Similarly, it would be in our interests to overthrow the Iranian government and replace it with a pro-US regime, much like we did in 1953 were such a thing possible. Moral and ethical considerations are simply irrelevant, what matters is acting in a way that is most strategically beneficial to the power and influence of the USA. Like it or not, that's the way it works and that's the way all of its power players have acted in the entire history of international diplomacy and ever will act.

I believe in realpolitik where it's necessary and would probably describe myself as a realist but it's simply not true that moral and ethical considerations have no bearing on foreign policy (a sociopathic position that I doubt even the likes of Henry Morganthau would cling to).

Would you rather the United States had continued to support the apartheid government in South Africa if it were in their economic or whatever interests to have done so?

I find that you've clarified my position on things, once again.

EM, I should just give you power of attorney over all my foreign policy positions.

[Ralkovia]

That is a consideration I had not though of.

So, from an instrumental point of view would you be willing to concede that acting unethically on the world stage could have a detrimental effect on your world image? And hence that maybe tempering an excessive disposition towards cynical "realpolitik', with moral considerations (for purely instrumental reasons at bottom), is more prudent in the long run?

I mean, it's not like memories of Mossadeq are helping America's negotiations with Iran.

US made the right decision in not supporting South Africa. I don't think the way we act with Iran is at all unethical considering that they have alienated themselves.

[Common Territories]

So can you live with the possibility of Iran bombing Israel and other countries? Wide spread nuclear technology for any crack pot thanks to Iran selling the tech? Terrorists armed with nuclear weapons? How will you react when instead of Iran just threatening to destroy the west, it turns into "We will destroy the west with our powerful nuclear arms!" instead of just using some new lame missile they come up with every few months? You give that government nuclear weapons and your signing the death warrant for hundreds of millions of people.

The main concern people have is not whether or not Iran will nuke Israel (and it any case, technologically wise, Iran still has a long way to go to develop a functioning long-range ballistic missile), but the consequences of the subsequent arms race which will inevitably occur once Iran acquires nuclear weapons as the Saudis have already said that they would do so if Iran did.

I also said this. The difference is that there are immediate harm and possible harm. The immediate harm is that they will use it themselves, there are a few ways to use it that don't involve shooting it via a missile. Their best possibility is using one of their terrorist allies like Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah to deliver the weapon in a terrorist attack. If you think terrorism is bad now; imagine if instead of IED's or ambushes they use nuclear armed bombs in vans, the underwear bomber, time square bomber were just failed attempts that could have been even worse. 9/11 in a nuclear bombed terrorist attack would not only kill millions but damages would be past billions. No one would want to see cities bombed by terrorists in the US or Israel and other countries that could be targeted that are also Muslim nations. I personally wouldn't worry about their missile tech, our missile tech in the 60 was 5X better then their current tech. One thing everyone needs to know is that Iran is only capable of boasting lies about being advanced; remember these are the same people who claim they have advanced spy drones guarding their borders, having millions of agents in the US, and other ridicules bull crap. If we went to war now (US and/or other nations vs Iran) it would end up like another Gulf War minus the rebuilding part (hopefully anyways on rebuilding), it's not like we haven't kicked their asses before; Operation Pray mantes destroyed their entire navy and beat the crap out of their air force all easily very quickly.

The Arms race is the other big issue which I also stated. Every nation in that region will want one to be safe from Iran, nations outside that region too would possibly want nukes because "Hey how come Iran gets nukes but we can't?". Which is all very bad too since most of these countries couldn't protect their stockpiles unlike Pakistan. At least we know Iran will give the nukes to terrorists, other countries could lose them, fail to keep them safe, have them stolen, or end up using them themselves; at least we know Iran could protect it's nukes with these underground bunkers/labs they are making, "innocently" of course.

[Adventus Secundus]

Saw wikipedia, checked out.