Why Iran needs the Nuke

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Iran with Nuke=Taliban/Al Qaeda with nuke.

Simple as that.

It wouldn't be quite as bad as giving the Saudis a nuke.

[Corporate Councils]

Iran with Nuke=Taliban/Al Qaeda with nuke.

Simple as that.

Fortunately it's not. The Iranian leadership (the Ayatollah, not the President) is too rational to give nuclear weapons to terrorist groups, given the fact that they tend to be a bit unpredictable.

However, in the case that I am wrong, the US just needs to declare that they will treat a nuclear terrorist attack as if it was from an Iranian missile and retaliate. The mullahs want to remain in charge too much to risk complete annihilation.

[Typhlochactas]

They signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Why should they break international law?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious, I mean it's not as if Hitler didn't sign paper as well then take over half a of Europe.

I think you missed the point.

[Myrensis]

Israel knows their own capabilities better than anyone else does. I seriously doubt that they're making empty threats.

Israel threatening to carry out attacks to disrupt Irans nuclear program =!= Israel is fully capable of a mass coordinated airstrike over long distance that will vaporize every last sticky note with the word "nuclear" on it throughout Iran.

I agree. Now, the US might let the Israelis get away with a conventional strike on Iranian nuclear installations. We'd have to make stern noises and probably clean up some of the fallout, but that wouldn't set the world on fire, I don't think. The Sunni Arabs would make the appropriate noises, too, but in their heart of hearts I think they'd let it go. Filthy Shi'ite heretics, don't you know.

True. But leaves us with the problem that A. Israel is, all the fanboyism over their l33t military aside, not likely to be able to cripple Irans nuclear program, and B. An Israeli attack is probably..exactly the absolute last thing in the world that is going to convince the Iranians to go "Oh, well, better give up on building that weapon that will make it nearly impossible to do that again."

You understand how OPEC works right. I'm assuming you don't, because it's the only way you could confuse what I said. OPEC is an oligarchy. All the members operate together. They're all pretty much equal. One of them steps out of line, the other members fuck them over. Iran with a nuclear weapon can influence the smaller nations in OPEC to follow them in reducing oil and increasing prices. Why? Because Saudi Arabia is pretty much large and in charge, thanks to the US's backing.

How? At best I guess they could threaten to use conventional force against another OPEC member and rely on nukes to deter retaliation. But to actually use nuclear weapons as a threat requires the other members of OPEC to believe that Iran is willing to engage in mass suicide for the sake of bumping oil prices. The assorted countries of the ME hate and fear Iran for a variety of reason, but's it's only hysterical war/fearmongers in the West who honestly believe that Iran is itching to get itself vaporized in glorious confrontation with the rest of the world. Nukes don't work as an external threat unless you're suicidal, and the leadership of Iran hasn't actually shown any particular suicidal tendencies in the thirty some odd years they've been in power.

Iran with Nuke=Taliban/Al Qaeda with nuke.

Simple as that.

If Pakistan, which has written off entire sections of it's country as being under the control of extremist groups and has a military and intelligence establishment corrupt at every level has still managed to avoid slipping a nuke to any terrorists, this idea that the very first thing Iran is going to do is start giving them away as Ramadan presents to Al Qaeda or Hamas or Hezbollah or whatever is just laughable.

[The Imperial Alliance of Free States]

To begin, the US is acting as a rational self actor, unlike most bullies. Then there's the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapons program would be against international law. There's the potential issue of it creating instability and/or an arms race in the Middle East.

In short, the US is acting in most people's best interests (perhaps even including Iran itself) by acting to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.

If Iran withdraws from the NPT, then the issue of international law would disappear. A nuclear Iran would increase stability in the Middle East by discouraging wars, similar to how nuclear weapons prevented war between America and the Soviet Union. More repressive (North Korea) and unstable (Pakistan) regimes have gained nuclear weapons, and instability in those regions has stayed very low.

Where do you get your international news? I'll grant you there haven't been any major wars in either of those areas, but by no means is either stable or is that supposed stability caused by nuclear weapons.

If Iran withdraws from the NPT, then the issue of international law would disappear. A nuclear Iran would increase stability in the Middle East by discouraging wars, similar to how nuclear weapons prevented war between America and the Soviet Union. More repressive (North Korea) and unstable (Pakistan) regimes have gained nuclear weapons, and instability in those regions has stayed very low.

A nuclear Iran could continue to fund terrorist movements and indirectly attack its enemies while other countries, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia themselves pursue nuclear weapons. Yeah, that's totally more stable/

Anyway, instability in the Korean Peninsula probably reached a recent low last year when North Korea shelled a South Korean island, and the US/ROK launched exercises. To be honest, the only reason why the country hasn't imploded is because no one wants to deal with the consequences of millions of starving Koreans fed nothing but propaganda their whole lives.

And Pakistan is a horrible example. They've had multiple coups in recent history. Their military and civilian government is locked in head-to-head combat. The ISI lets terrorists have free reign of certain areas, areas that have gotten scarily close to nuclear weapons facilities. The ISI probably supported Bin Laden, not to mention their support for the Mumbai Gunmen. Indian and Pakistan have had several recent military conflicts, including the Indo-Pakistan War of 1999. Pakistan isn't stable.

Comparing the insane Iranian government and the nearly insane Israeli government to the US and the USSR does not work. During the Cold War, the threat was Mutual Assured Destruction. In the event of a nuclear exchange, there would not have been anyone left alive to win the war. Iran and Israel face no such problem. The Israeli arsenal is fairly small, but large enough to annihilate most of Iran. Iran does not yet have an arsenal to speak of and would require years to create an arsenal large enough that a single mass strike would destroy Israel beyond fear of retaliation (from Israel. I won't even mention the international firestorm a Second Holocaust would cause). The weapons used by the Iranians and Israelis would be relatively low-yield tactical weapons and dirty bombs. Since the Iranian government has already proved itself crazy enough to believe they could hold the Strait of Hormuz closed against the might of the American Navy, they are probably crazy enough to believe that if they had nuclear weapons they could "win" a nuclear exchange with Israel, especially if they either used a terrorist front or framed the Israelis.

Forget the arguments about Israel’s' bomb etc. It has nothing to do with the discussion.

Iran MUST NOT have "the bomb" They seek regional domination and the destruction of another nation. Unstable religious fascists who cannot be trusted rule the downtrodden masses. Screw their rights. They are a threat to any and all people who do not hew to their warped view of the world and how it should be run.

Iran couldn't destroy Israel if they tried their hardest.
And it was reported in the news recently about US having 13.6 tonne bunker busters.

The Vancouver Sun
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/adds ... story.html

What the hell does that have to do with Iranian nukes?? Those are conventional weapons designed to do exactly what you described them to do, blow up bunkers with conventional explosives. How is that in any way shape or form related to a nuclear weapon?

[Socialist EU]

If Iran withdraws from the NPT, then the issue of international law would disappear. A nuclear Iran would increase stability in the Middle East by discouraging wars, similar to how nuclear weapons prevented war between America and the Soviet Union. More repressive (North Korea) and unstable (Pakistan) regimes have gained nuclear weapons, and instability in those regions has stayed very low.

Where do you get your international news? I'll grant you there haven't been any major wars in either of those areas, but by no means is either stable or is that supposed stability caused by nuclear weapons.

A nuclear Iran could continue to fund terrorist movements and indirectly attack its enemies while other countries, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia themselves pursue nuclear weapons. Yeah, that's totally more stable/

Anyway, instability in the Korean Peninsula probably reached a recent low last year when North Korea shelled a South Korean island, and the US/ROK launched exercises. To be honest, the only reason why the country hasn't imploded is because no one wants to deal with the consequences of millions of starving Koreans fed nothing but propaganda their whole lives.

And Pakistan is a horrible example. They've had multiple coups in recent history. Their military and civilian government is locked in head-to-head combat. The ISI lets terrorists have free reign of certain areas, areas that have gotten scarily close to nuclear weapons facilities. The ISI probably supported Bin Laden, not to mention their support for the Mumbai Gunmen. Indian and Pakistan have had several recent military conflicts, including the Indo-Pakistan War of 1999. Pakistan isn't stable.

Comparing the insane Iranian government and the nearly insane Israeli government to the US and the USSR does not work. During the Cold War, the threat was Mutual Assured Destruction. In the event of a nuclear exchange, there would not have been anyone left alive to win the war. Iran and Israel face no such problem. The Israeli arsenal is fairly small, but large enough to annihilate most of Iran. Iran does not yet have an arsenal to speak of and would require years to create an arsenal large enough that a single mass strike would destroy Israel beyond fear of retaliation (from Israel. I won't even mention the international firestorm a Second Holocaust would cause). The weapons used by the Iranians and Israelis would be relatively low-yield tactical weapons and dirty bombs. Since the Iranian government has already proved itself crazy enough to believe they could hold the Strait of Hormuz closed against the might of the American Navy, they are probably crazy enough to believe that if they had nuclear weapons they could "win" a nuclear exchange with Israel, especially if they either used a terrorist front or framed the Israelis.

Iran couldn't destroy Israel if they tried their hardest.
And it was reported in the news recently about US having 13.6 tonne bunker busters.

The Vancouver Sun
http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/adds ... story.html

What the hell does that have to do with Iranian nukes?? Those are conventional weapons designed to do exactly what you described them to do, blow up bunkers with conventional explosives. How is that in any way shape or form related to a nuclear weapon?

I can just imagine what would happen if I put up a forum opposing an attack on Iran. I would be hounded for setting up another OP on Iran when there already is one.

[Goodclark]

Ahmadinejad is first and foremost [the 13th most powerful man in Iran]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUbqbpBX1Us (hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr)

Wow, only 13th most powerful? I thought he would be way more powerful then that.

[Goodclark]

They signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Why should they break international law?

Because they can.

[The-_Sicarii]

OKAY FIRST:

Ahmadinejad has said MULTIPLE TIMES that he would nuc Israel if he could.

SECOND:

Israel has more nucs than Pakistan! (that's a lot!)

THIRD:
Iran+nuc=Iran nuc Israel=Israel nuc Iran=global conflagration involving China, Russia, and the US as well as most other nuclear powers=GLOBAL ****ING THERMONUCLEAR WAR

CLEAR?

[Goodclark]

OKAY FIRST:

Ahmadinejad has said MULTIPLE TIMES that he would nuc Israel if he could.

SECOND:

Israel has more nucs than Pakistan! (that's a lot!)

THIRD:
Iran+nuc=Iran nuc Israel=Israel nuc Iran=GLOBAL ****ING THERMONUCLEAR WAR

CLEAR?

no

[Desu Desu Desu Desu]

No one deserves nukes.

~desu

[The-_Sicarii]

OKAY FIRST:

Ahmadinejad has said MULTIPLE TIMES that he would nuc Israel if he could.

SECOND:

Israel has more nucs than Pakistan! (that's a lot!)

THIRD:
Iran+nuc=Iran nuc Israel=Israel nuc Iran=GLOBAL ****ING THERMONUCLEAR WAR

CLEAR?

no

What part of that do you not understand?

[Goodclark]

no

What part of that do you not understand?

I was kidding.

[The-_Sicarii]

What part of that do you not understand?

I was kidding.

Okay, good, so we're all on the same page.

[Goodclark]

I was kidding.

Okay, good, so we're all on the same page.

Yes, yes we are.

[Typhlochactas]

They signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Why should they break international law?

Because they can.

Oh, that's good justification.

[Corporate Councils]

What part of that do you not understand?

Your assumption that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons will lead to the end of the world on the basis that Russia and the US are willing to destroy the world over Iran or Israel. Also your claim that Israel has way more nukes than Pakistan. Though a single nuclear weapon is significant, Israel only has an estimated 80-200 weapons while Pakistan has 90-110. When compared to the US (8,000) or Russia (10,000) that's not that many.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

[ConDemmed]

OKAY FIRST:

Ahmadinejad has said MULTIPLE TIMES that he would nuc Israel if he could.

SECOND:

Israel has more nucs than Pakistan! (that's a lot!)

THIRD:
Iran+nuc=Iran nuc Israel=Israel nuc Iran=global conflagration involving China, Russia, and the US as well as most other nuclear powers=GLOBAL ****ING THERMONUCLEAR WAR

CLEAR?

Clear as a tin foil hat.

[The-_Sicarii]

What part of that do you not understand?

Your assumption that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons will lead to the end of the world on the basis that Russia and the US are willing to destroy the world over Iran or Israel. Also your claim that Israel has way more nukes than Pakistan. Though a single nuclear weapon is significant, Israel only has an estimated 80-200 weapons while Pakistan has 90-110. When compared to the US (8,000) or Russia (10,000) that's not that many.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

Maybe you didn't read Part 3. An Iranian attack on Israel would lead to global conflagration, which causes global thermonuclear war.

OKAY FIRST:

Ahmadinejad has said MULTIPLE TIMES that he would nuc Israel if he could.

SECOND:

Israel has more nucs than Pakistan! (that's a lot!)

THIRD:
Iran+nuc=Iran nuc Israel=Israel nuc Iran=global conflagration involving China, Russia, and the US as well as most other nuclear powers=GLOBAL ****ING THERMONUCLEAR WAR

CLEAR?

Clear as a tin foil hat.

Dismissed on the grounds that you provide no logic whatsoever.

[Myrensis]

OKAY FIRST:
Ahmadinejad has said MULTIPLE TIMES that he would nuc Israel if he could.

Source

SECOND:

Israel has more nucs than Pakistan! (that's a lot!)

And?

THIRD:
Iran+nuc=Iran nuc Israel=Israel nuc Iran=global conflagration involving China, Russia, and the US as well as most other nuclear powers=GLOBAL ****ING THERMONUCLEAR WAR

CLEAR?

As mud. Russia and China are not going to get involved in a nuclear war for the sake of Iran. If Iran strikes first Russia and China will drop them like a bad habit. If Israel strikes first Russia and China will loudly condemn them and sit back laughing their asses off as the US is forced to cut ties with its closes ally in the Middle East at the same time that it loses all legitimacy and authority on Nuclear Proliferation issues.

[The-_Sicarii]

OKAY FIRST:
Ahmadinejad has said MULTIPLE TIMES that he would nuc Israel if he could.

Source

SECOND:

Israel has more nucs than Pakistan! (that's a lot!)

And?

THIRD:
Iran+nuc=Iran nuc Israel=Israel nuc Iran=global conflagration involving China, Russia, and the US as well as most other nuclear powers=GLOBAL ****ING THERMONUCLEAR WAR

CLEAR?

As mud. Russia and China are not going to get involved in a nuclear war for the sake of Iran. If Iran strikes first Russia and China will drop them like a bad habit. If Israel strikes first Russia and China will loudly condemn them and sit back laughing their asses off as the US is forced to cut ties with its closes ally in the Middle East at the same time that it loses all legitimacy and authority on Nuclear Proliferation issues.

1. Look up Ahmadinejad and Israel in one google search, see what comes up.

2. The point is that Israel would be perceived as a threat.

3. The US would have to intervene to protect Israel because Israel keeps the US nucs at the cutting edge.
That would require Russia and/or China to step in because the US launching nucs is obviously not something they want to happen. Simply put, if the US can launch nucs with impudence with no fear of retaliation, suddenly we have a unipolar world. Guess who doesn't want that? RUSSIA AND CHINA.

In addition, Iran puts pressure on the Saudi Arabian oil market via the strait of Hormuz. If this pressure is taken away, Saudi Arabian oil will trade off with Russian oil in the world market. Oil is vital to the Russian economy. Suffice to say, Iran is helping Russia's economy.

Then, economy collapse empirically leads to war. Not recession, like we've had, but collapse, like the Great Depression and what would happen to Russia. Also, Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, and China in just about every epoch have given examples of the truth of this statement.

So Iranian nucs lead to nuclear war through two different scenarios. Choose your poison.

Anything else you don't get?

[Myrensis]

1. Look up Ahmadinejad and Israel in one google search, see what comes up.

2. The point is that Israel would be perceived as a threat.

3. The US would have to intervene to protect Israel because Israel keeps the US nucs at the cutting edge.
That would require Russia and/or China to step in because the US launching nucs is obviously not something they want to happen. Simply put, if the US can launch nucs with impudence with no fear of retaliation, suddenly we have a unipolar world. Guess who doesn't want that? RUSSIA AND CHINA.

Anything else you don't get?

1. Not seeing anything about a threat to nuke Israel.

2. Israel is all ready perceived as a threat, and I'm not sure how you think that "We must nuke them immediately" follows from "They have way more nukes than us!". Logic would seem to suggest the opposite.

3. The only conceivable situation in which the US is going to launch nukes is if Iran does it first, in which case, again, Russia and China are going to get as far away from them as possible. They're not going to start WWIII over an ally of nominal strategic and economic value who initiated nuclear war with a major US ally.

[Corporate Councils]

1. Look up Ahmadinejad and Israel in one google search, see what comes up.

2. The point is that Israel would be perceived as a threat.

3. The US would have to intervene to protect Israel because Israel keeps the US nucs at the cutting edge.
That would require Russia and/or China to step in because the US launching nucs is obviously not something they want to happen. Simply put, if the US can launch nucs with impudence with no fear of retaliation, suddenly we have a unipolar world. Guess who doesn't want that? RUSSIA AND CHINA.

In addition, Iran puts pressure on the Saudi Arabian oil market via the strait of Hormuz. If this pressure is taken away, Saudi Arabian oil will trade off with Russian oil in the world market. Oil is vital to the Russian economy. Suffice to say, Iran is helping Russia's economy.

Then, economy collapse empirically leads to war. Not recession, like we've had, but collapse, like the Great Depression and what would happen to Russia. Also, Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, and China in just about every epoch have given examples of the truth of this statement.

So Iranian nucs lead to nuclear war through two different scenarios. Choose your poison.

Anything else you don't get?

1. That would be much more terrifying if Ahmadinejad was actually the one calling the shots when it comes to things like nuking Israel.

2. They're perceived as a threat right now, but again, Iran isn't going to immediately nuke Israel once it develops a weapon.

3. Pray tell, how does Israel keep US nukes on the cutting edge? Also, even if we had these "cutting edge Israeli nukes" how does this take away the 10,000 nukes that Russia has? Furthermore, Russia and China aren't going to start lobbing nukes over Iran, a troublesome neighbor that's as likely to supply insurgents within their borders as it is Iraq's.

You also are assuming that the first thing that Iran is going to do is cut off the Straight of Hormuz when its economy is so heavily based around oil exports and that the Saudi's, Kuwaiti's, and Iraqi's won't just build a pipeline that goes through someplace like Oman or the Red Sea ports of Saudi Arabia.

Finally, economic collapse leads to war as often as war leads to economic collapse. Can you explain how Ancient Greece fell apart due to an economic failure?

[The-_Sicarii]

1. Look up Ahmadinejad and Israel in one google search, see what comes up.

2. The point is that Israel would be perceived as a threat.

3. The US would have to intervene to protect Israel because Israel keeps the US nucs at the cutting edge.
That would require Russia and/or China to step in because the US launching nucs is obviously not something they want to happen. Simply put, if the US can launch nucs with impudence with no fear of retaliation, suddenly we have a unipolar world. Guess who doesn't want that? RUSSIA AND CHINA.

In addition, Iran puts pressure on the Saudi Arabian oil market via the strait of Hormuz. If this pressure is taken away, Saudi Arabian oil will trade off with Russian oil in the world market. Oil is vital to the Russian economy. Suffice to say, Iran is helping Russia's economy.

Then, economy collapse empirically leads to war. Not recession, like we've had, but collapse, like the Great Depression and what would happen to Russia. Also, Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, and China in just about every epoch have given examples of the truth of this statement.

So Iranian nucs lead to nuclear war through two different scenarios. Choose your poison.

Anything else you don't get?

1. That would be much more terrifying if Ahmadinejad was actually the one calling the shots when it comes to things like nuking Israel.

2. They're perceived as a threat right now, but again, Iran isn't going to immediately nuke Israel once it develops a weapon.

3. Pray tell, how does Israel keep US nukes on the cutting edge? Also, even if we had these "cutting edge Israeli nukes" how does this take away the 10,000 nukes that Russia has? Furthermore, Russia and China aren't going to start lobbing nukes over Iran, a troublesome neighbor that's as likely to supply insurgents within their borders as it is Iraq's.

You also are assuming that the first thing that Iran is going to do is cut off the Straight of Hormuz when its economy is so heavily based around oil exports and that the Saudi's, Kuwaiti's, and Iraqi's won't just build a pipeline that goes through someplace like Oman or the Red Sea ports of Saudi Arabia.

Finally, economic collapse leads to war as often as war leads to economic collapse. Can you explain how Ancient Greece fell apart due to an economic failure?

1. Ahmadinejad is sort of in charge.

2. Refer to 1.

3. US sends nucs to Israel, Israel modifies them and sends them back. This is relevant because without them, the US would be much less capable of remaining a nuclear power given how much we suck in the STEM fields. And, of course, superior tech is key to success in any given area. Russia's 10,000 nucs actually reinforce my argument.

Next, you're arguments don't assume that Russia and China want a world absent US hegemony.

Also, Iran's pressure on Saudi Arabia drives up oil prices. High oil prices are vital to Russia's economy.

Now, on Ancient Greece: the Peloponnesian War led to the collapse of the economies of most of the Greek city-states. This in turn caused Macedon to take advantage of their weakness and take over.

[Corporate Councils]

1. Ahmadinejad is sort of in charge.

2. Refer to 1.

3. US sends nucs to Israel, Israel modifies them and sends them back. This is relevant because without them, the US would be much less capable of remaining a nuclear power given how much we suck in the STEM fields. And, of course, superior tech is key to success in any given area. Russia's 10,000 nucs actually reinforce my argument.

Next, you're arguments don't assume that Russia and China want a world absent US hegemony.

Also, Iran's pressure on Saudi Arabia drives up oil prices. High oil prices are vital to Russia's economy.

Now, on Ancient Greece: the Peloponnesian War led to the collapse of the economies of most of the Greek city-states. This in turn caused Macedon to take advantage of their weakness and take over.

1. Sort of in charge? No, Khamenei is the absolute ruler of Iran, he calls the shots. Ahmadinejad is his subordinate, period.

2. Refuted

3. Do you have any proof that the US is dependent on a foreign country to maintain our nuclear arsenal? Also, though we lag in the STEM areas, we are still more-or-less the world leader in developing technology. I'm pretty sure our $500 military budget has some money set aside for keeping our nukes in working order.

4. Russia and China would prefer to see a world less dominated by the US, but they're not about to launch a nuclear war against us over Iran in order to do so. They're both well aware of the concept of MAD and have not yet built their secret moon bases to escape such consequences. Also, the relationship between Iran and its patrons might not be as strong as you think given that both China and Russia are highly repressive towards Muslims within their own borders and put down any talk of Islamic revolution with a heavy hand.

5. High oil prices are also good for Russia's economy, but I don't see Iran restricting the flow of oil from the Straight of Hormuz (where their own oil flows through) which would cripple their oil-export based economy in order to help the "Lesser Satan".

6. Athens had actually recovered her fleet, economy, government, and most of her empire within a decade of losing to Sparta. Sparta's own economy was the strongest it had ever been as a result of its hegemony and the Boetians reached a high point in their power. The reason that the Macedonians were able to annex their Greek cousins is because Phillip II had done a better job at unifying his people than Demosthenes. Might I suggest Donald Kagan's book on the topic if you'd like to learn more?

If you would recall your original argument was:

Then, economy collapse empirically leads to war.

Quite the opposite of what you just claimed.