Why Iran needs the Nuke

[Myrensis]

No Iran has plenty of interest in attacking Israel. The military is smart enough to know that will end their careers the bloody way and the civilian government is just sane enough to know that without the military's support they will fall faster than a rock.

So...your argument is that Iran would totally attack Israel..if we lived in an alternate universe where they had the capability to do so, the ability to win, and immunity from the inevitable consequences? Because under those conditions there would be quite a lot of surprising wars going on in the world. Or more relevantly, given those conditions every country in the middle east "has plenty of interest in attacking Israel", including our supposed "allies", yet they are still our "allies", and not horrible evil threats to world peace.

And on Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz, there was once a thread on that. To my memory, the general consensus, correctly, was, "Sure, they could. But witin a week the Americans would wipe the floor with them."

And? Iran's threats about the Strait of Hormuz have never been based on the idea that they could actually hold them against the US and everyone else who would come gunning for them if they did it, it's always been a last resort "Push us too far and we go down giving the global economy a good kick in the teeth."

[New Chalcedon]

I thought Saudi Arabia was obvious.

Costa, I think you're a pretty cool guy in general, but, really, you can do better than this. Here's a map of the NPT by country:



Light green = signed and ratified. Notice how both the US and Iran are in light green?

So if Iran's ratification of the NPT means they can't have nukes, why don't we say the same for America?

Because that's not what the NPT says. Learn to read. The NPT prohibits non-nuclear nations from developing new nukes; it does not prohibit nuclear powers from maintaining their arsenals. All the NPT imposes on nuclear powers is an obligation to negotiate in good faith toward disarmament - which the US has done, given the SALT, SALT II, START, START II, START III, SORT and New START disarmament treaties signed and ratified by the US since then.

Oh, and kindly note that Israel is not a signatory, per the UN Office of Disaramament Affairs, which monitors the treaty. Learn to fucking research before opening your mouth and lying about facts.

Iran is an enemy of the United States in an extremely vital position; the more we can do to weaken them and contain their influence, the better. Allowing them to get a nuclear weapon would be detrimental to that goal.

That's the same reason why Israel took out the Iraqi nuclear reactor under construction; I can only imagine what would've happened if Iraq had nuclear weapons during the Gulf War, let alone the Iran-Iraq War...

And that's why everyone hates the U.S. The Iraq-Iran War was in 198-1988. Iraq and Iran are close to each other. Iraq only had a nuclear reactor. In fact, Iraq NEVER had weapons of mass destruction in their possession. And don't cite Kuwait. Nuke that nation and the fallout would damage Iraq just as much, if not more.

Yeah, Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction! Well, except for all that poison gas they used on the Kurds and the Shi'ite rebels, not to mention Iranian civilians during the Iran-Iraq War.

The U.S needs to be fair and even handed. Currently, the U.S is about to lose the alliance between South Korea and them because of the U.S being dicks to South Korea. Currently, every Middle Eastern nation hates the U.S because the U.S is siding with Israel.

[Citation needed]

Deserves? No. Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. By the treaty, “the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals”. So, no. Now, if Iran would like to rescind its agreement, I suppose they can do so.

As for the Muslim countries uniting behind Iranian leadership, that's not about to happen, given the age-old distrust of Sunnis for Shi'ites.

Of course, Vietnam signed that agreement and so did the U.S. Iran is creating nuclear reactors at the moment and it's such a crime. But the U.S builds reactors in Vietnam and it's fine. That's another reason Iran needs to take it further. To make sure the U.S isn't as hypocritical as they are now.

I'm surethat someoneof your demonstrated wisdom will note the difference between reactors (not banned by the treaty) and weapons (banned by the treaty) - indeed, the third pillar of the NPT enshrines the right of nations to peaceful use of nuclear technology. The reason there's a fuss is not because people don't want Iran to have nuclear power: it's because people don't believe Iran is aiming for nuclear power, but rather for weapons.

I never said Muslim nations would unite under Iran. I'm saying a bit more stability would come to the Middle East due to Iranians having leverage when dealing with Israel. The Shia Sunni conflicts won't leave and I never said they would leave.

Yeeees, because Iranian influence over Syria and Lebanonhas socreated stability on Israel's northern border. Oh, wait.

[Caninope]

*snip*

I'm Caninope, a dedicated American conservative/libertarian/something patriot, and I approve this post by the Australian liberal.

[Maurepas]

I think it's not about what Iran needs, but whether it is in the US's best interests to continue to fight Israel's wars for it.

I would argue, it's not.

[Myrensis]

I think it's not about what Iran needs, but whether it is in the US's best interests to continue to fight Israel's wars for it.

I would argue, it's not.

Anti-Semite!

[Maurepas]

I think it's not about what Iran needs, but whether it is in the US's best interests to continue to fight Israel's wars for it.

I would argue, it's not.

Anti-Semite!

Yeah, that's what the Israel lobby would say. But I have no problem with Jews, I have a problem with the US supporting a foreign country at a detriment to our own.

[Allrule]

Costa, I think you're a pretty cool guy in general, but, really, you can do better than this. Here's a map of the NPT by country:



Light green = signed and ratified. Notice how both the US and Iran are in light green?

So if Iran's ratification of the NPT means they can't have nukes, why don't we say the same for America?

Oh, and kindly note that Israel is not a signatory, per the UN Office of Disaramament Affairs, which monitors the treaty. Learn to fucking research before opening your mouth and lying about facts.

I didn't even talk about Israel in that post.

Lrn2read.

[Ulvena]

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.

Thank you. I do this on my school essays because I think that if the teacher has an easier time with finding where I found my information, maybe I'll get a better grade...WHICH I DO BECAUSE I'M AWESOME.

Well of course Iran shouldn't develop nuclear weapons because nukes kill people. But, like you said, that goes for all nations. I'm merely talking about the social and political effects that may happen when Iran gets a nuclear weapon.

I think it's not about what Iran needs, but whether it is in the US's best interests to continue to fight Israel's wars for it.

I would argue, it's not.

Anti-Semite!

I don't hate the Jews...I just hate the Israeli government and Israeli lobbying organizations in the U.S. How they control U.S politics to a degree worth of being concerned about.

1. No Iran has plenty of interest in attacking Israel. The military is smart enough to know that will end their careers the bloody way and the civilian government is just sane enough to know that without the military's support they will fall faster than a rock.

2. And on Iran blocking the Strait of Hormuz, there was once a thread on that. To my memory, the general consensus, correctly, was, "Sure, they could. But witin a week the Americans would wipe the floor with them."

1. They have interest but they're not stupid. The only time they'll attack Israel is when they have considerable backing from other Middle Eastern countries (it's no longer the Six Day war era) or they're gonna die anyways. Such as if America attacks.

2. Yes, and Israel would become a wasteland for 50 years due to Iran wanting to go down with Israel. Besides, Iran has a decent relationship with China and Russia. All they want to do is strike at the U.S for being such assholes in foreign politics.

[Ulvena]

1. Yeah, Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction! Well, except for all that poison gas they used on the Kurds and the Shi'ite rebels, not to mention Iranian civilians during the Iran-Iraq War.

The U.S needs to be fair and even handed. Currently, the U.S is about to lose the alliance between South Korea and them because of the U.S being dicks to South Korea. Currently, every Middle Eastern nation hates the U.S because the U.S is siding with Israel.

2. [Citation needed]

3. I'm surethat someoneof your demonstrated wisdom will note the difference between reactors (not banned by the treaty) and weapons (banned by the treaty) - indeed, the third pillar of the NPT enshrines the right of nations to peaceful use of nuclear technology. The reason there's a fuss is not because people don't want Iran to have nuclear power: it's because people don't believe Iran is aiming for nuclear power, but rather for weapons.

4. Yeeees, because Iranian influence over Syria and Lebanonhas socreated stability on Israel's northern border. Oh, wait.

1. They were all purged by the U.N after the Persian Gulf War. The U.N was currently investigating Iraq and Iraq was open about it before 2003. The U.S had no reason to invade.

2. http://www.gallup.com/poll/114007/Opini ... frica.aspx

South Korea? The U.S is selling their crap planes at high price. I guess you could blame the idiot we call a President in South Korea but then again, it's like giving a retard a blowtorch. You just don't do it.

3. Did you know that about 600,000 people press the space bar with you every second? Just something to keep in mind. In any case: What people believe and what Iran is actually doing are two different things. Not to mention: the NPT...nobody who's a superpower listens to it. China? Has nukes. Russia? Nukes. South Korea? Had tried to make nukes but President Park was assassinated by a KCIA agent operating under U.S interests [1]. U.K? Nukes. France? Nukes. I'm not very good on my geography so here's a link to all of the NTP people with nuclear weapons: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... states.svg

They're light blue.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassinat ... r_theories

4. Again, space bar. Don't be forever alone. Press the space bar and 600,000 people are pressing it with you. From a Vsauce video. Anyways: Syria has 74% Sunni wile Iran is 90% Shia. The rivalry and conflict between the two cannot be denied. Lebanon? Considering 22% are Christian and the Shia Sunni gap isn't that big, it's more likely due to the Christian-Muslim conflicts.

The whole point of Iran getting nuclear weapons is to make sure Israel cannot do whatever they want and the U.S cannot meddle in Middle Eastern affairs in such a blatantly biased, dickish way.

[Kalalification]

Only the completely detached think that allowing Iran, a signatory of the NPT, to acquire nuclear weapons is somehow justified. Of course, these people are almost always the same ones who claim to support disarmament and decry proliferation. In reality, they're bitter, and primarily, anti-American. They are so feverishly and pettily anti-American that they're blinded to the things they support, to the point that they discard reason and investigation, and instead opt for reactionary policy on the grounds of "nuclear fairness".

Well I'll be having none of it, thank you very much, and neither will the UN.

Also, did anyone take a look at the sources provided by the OP? Did RT not send up any red flags? Or, you know, fucking REVISIONISTHISTORY.ORG?! Christ.

[Costa Fiero]

2. Yes, and Israel would become a wasteland for 50 years due to Iran wanting to go down with Israel. Besides, Iran has a decent relationship with China and Russia. All they want to do is strike at the U.S for being such assholes in foreign politics.

You seem to have this idea that China and Russia actually give a damn about Iran. China only acts because it has a policy of non-intervention and it believes that all other nations should leave one another alone and Russia is only interested in Iran for geopolitical reasons. Given the opportunity, Moscow would drop Iran like a hot brick.

[Cameroi]

what iran needs, is to stop bashing gays and non-shi-ahs. THEN it needs a strong solar, wind and energy storage industry, and, like everyplace else, lots of little railroads, in addition to the big ones it already has.
it needs the greed of powerful nations to get off its case, but it does also need to clean up its own act. no nation needs nuclear weaponry for any reason other then that other nations have them, and this is not a good thing. it does need, or can bennifit from, further development of its nuclear power industry, but only as a temporary bridge for its energy demands.

[Cestyr]

Iran is a nation which commits genocide and oppression to it's own people and has done for years.

[Greater Ilanar]

Excuse me, but the President of Iran may act like a good dog in front of the UN, but he preaches death to Israel and the West in front of his people. Frankly put, yes, he is crazy. And Iran's sect of Muslims don't like the Muslims in Pakistan anymore than they like Israel.

[Kalalification]

Regardless of what Iran has done or not done, or what Israel has done or not done, it's legally bound to stay nuclear-free (well, power plants are okay). The reason people support Iran is not because it's actually sensible, but because they get caught up in metapolitical bullshit that blinds them from evaluating the situation in any rational fashion.

[Costa Fiero]

Regardless of what Iran has done or not done, or what Israel has done or not done, it's legally bound to stay nuclear-free (well, power plants are okay). The reason people support Iran is not because it's actually sensible, but because they get caught up in metapolitical bullshit that blinds them from evaluating the situation in any rational fashion.

It's more or less a technicality. Iran is also bound by the United Nation's Human Rights Charter or whatever it is and it routinely commits human rights violations on a regular basis.

[Myrensis]

Regardless of what Iran has done or not done, or what Israel has done or not done, it's legally bound to stay nuclear-free (well, power plants are okay). The reason people support Iran is not because it's actually sensible, but because they get caught up in metapolitical bullshit that blinds them from evaluating the situation in any rational fashion.

Protip: One of the reasons it's been so much harder to gather support against Iran is because we used the exact same rhetoric to pump the Iraq invasion. "They're building nuclear weapons!" "They'll be able to hit Israel within a few years!" "They support terrorists!". And 10 years, billions of dollars and thousands of deaths later all we have to show for it is empty hands and sheepish expressions.

Though actually the rhetoric against Iran is even less convincing, because the sum total of our "evidence" for Irans violent ambitions is "Ahmadenijad says nasty things about Israel!". Oh, and of course "Obviously Iran has sinister motives, they refuse to unconditionally do everything we tell them and give us complete access to their entire nuclear infrastructure, why would they do that if they had nothing to hide?!"

[Cameroi]

the last time persia/iran had a decent government was darius the 2nd, or some such. but brittan and the u.s. have kept making and keeping it worse, whatever the pretentions of their intentions.

yes, they don't even like islamist who aren't shi ah. let alone sunii's. they pay lip service to tolerating christians, some christians, and even jews. but only because there are a lot of christians in the world and their in the gunsights of israel. i suppose they might actually tolerate zoroastrians. they have been forced to change their regemes by outsiders many many times. it can readily be seen that this has not been of bennifit to anyone. quite the contrary.

i don't know what a good answer there would be. i expect there will probably be more wrong ones. but i don't expect to endorse any of them, any more then i endorse what they have now. which i don't.

there's a lot of pretty countryside there, believe it or not. its not all desert. its a shame its had a succession of one messed up government after another for several hundreds of years now. partially 'thanks' to previous outside interventions.

[Aryavartha]

nukes are a deterrent and a liability as well.

Once you have nukes and you get into a war, there is a good chance that you might just be wiped off the map by an enemy who does not want to risk your nuke hitting them.

It is better for Iran to keep it vague like Israel.

[Kalalification]

Protip: One of the reasons it's been so much harder to gather support against Iran is because we used the exact same rhetoric to pump the Iraq invasion. "They're building nuclear weapons!" "They'll be able to hit Israel within a few years!" "They support terrorists!". And 10 years, billions of dollars and thousands of deaths later all we have to show for it is empty hands and sheepish expressions.

Though actually the rhetoric against Iran is even less convincing, because the sum total of our "evidence" for Irans violent ambitions is "Ahmadenijad says nasty things about Israel!". Oh, and of course "Obviously Iran has sinister motives, they refuse to unconditionally do everything we tell them and give us complete access to their entire nuclear infrastructure, why would they do that if they had nothing to hide?!"

Oh boy, a strawman that doesn't actually refute my central criticism. Surely, because I don't support Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, I think we need to invade them.

It's more or less a technicality. Iran is also bound by the United Nation's Human Rights Charter or whatever it is and it routinely commits human rights violations on a regular basis.

Sure, international law is just a technicality. Not only that, but since it's just a technicality, you should support a nuclear Iran.

[Risottia]

Your opinion on this?

Basically, I'm more worried by the actual Pakistani and Israeli nukes than by the potential Iranian one.

[Kalalification]

Basically, I'm more worried by the actual Pakistani and Israeli nukes than by the potential Iranian one.

So let's just turn a blind fucking eye to them. They aren't allies of America, after all, so they're friends of yours.

[Bosiu]

Iranian nukes certainly would push our AEGIS systems forward, maybe even give the YAL-10 that extra push it needs to complete.

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

I'm sure some one in the thread has posted this opinion, but I can't be bothered reading the entire thread. Iran has every right to defend itself from American aggression, and the United States has absolutely no right to be involved in Middle Eastern affairs or tell Iran what it can and cannot build within its own borders. Doing so is hypocritical and counter-productive not only to diplomatic relations, but to the US economy and Iranian people.

[Arkinesia]

Firstly, Russia Today isn't a very good news source as it routinely uses the opinions of a well known conspiracy theorist as fact. Secondly, Imadinnerjacket, like the rest of Iran's leadership, is batshit insane. And the reason why there are sanctions is because of gross human rights violations. We're talking about a government that endorses the stoning of rape victims for "adultery".

Also, any nuclear weapons will not bring equality but create an arms race. The only reason there hasn't been any all out war against Israel is because the Arab states and Iran know that it has the power to turn their dictatorships/theocratic hellholes into steaming craters. Iran doesn't need the nuclear bomb any more than Saudi Arabia does.

If Iran's leadership were as crazy as you make it sound, they'd have sold more weapons to Hezbollah and sparked WWIII by now.

Iran can't do anything even if they become nuclear because Israel and the Saudis would gang-rape them before the USN could even respond.