Why I think the middle east would be safer if Iran had nuclear weapons.

Pappy o' daniel

Yes, I know what your thinking but hear me out.

Nuclear weapons bring peace, ironic but evident. Take India/Pakistan, since WW2 they engaged
in 2 large scale wars, and besides that they would have border skirmishes every other year.
Since they both went nuclear they now go to great lengths not to antagonise each other.

If a country has a monopoly of such a weapon they will use it. Would the US have bombed Japan
if other countries had nuclear weapons at that time? Probably not, it would be a precedent that
would endanger themselves.

So, to the mid. east. Israel acts as an alpha predator in a flock of sheep, doing as it wants
without fear, and Israel is right to do what it wants for there is no consequences for its actions. This is good for Israel
but bad for others in the region.
A country that is unchecked by its neighbours will always be beligerant. Gaza last year, Lebannon
3 years ago, recent air raids on Syria, the assassination of the Hamas leader recently.

It is only a matter of time before Israel go's to war again. What the middle east needs is balance.
If Iran went nuclear, Israel would change from beligerant to cautious, overnight.
In my opinion a nuclear Iran would make the middle east a much more peaceful place.

wes

Well, yeah a lot of what you say does make a certain kind of sense, but there is always plan B and that is to not let any of them have nuclear weapons, but sadly you plan is oddly and sadly probably the more realistic one.

Pappy o' daniel

wes wrote: »

Well, yeah a lot of what you say does make a certain kind of sense, but there is always plan B and that is to not let any of them have nuclear weapons, but sadly you plan is oddly and sadly probably the more realistic one.

But Israel already has nukes, thats my point.

cavedave

So, to the mid. east. Israel acts as an alpha predator in a flock of sheep, doing as it wants
without fear, and Israel is right to do what it wants for there is no consequences for its actions. This is good for Israel

Thats not really true. Israel has not gone and nuked Iran because if it did there would be very bad consequences for it. It cannot do whatever it wants. Its trade and western financial support would disappear if it went round nuking and invading other countries at a whim.

A country that is unchecked by its neighbours will always be beligerant. Gaza last year, Lebannon
3 years ago, recent air raids on Syria, the assassination of the Hamas leader recently.

Beligerant is a hell of a lot better than nuking each other. Just because nuclear powers have not gone to war with each other yet does not mean they won't.

Say both sides having nukes reduces wars to a tenth the previous probability but the war is then a hundred times worse. You dont have to calculate deeply into the calculus of death to then see they would be a bad idea.

Bottle_of_Smoke

cavedave wrote: »

Thats not really true. Israel has not gone and nuked Iran because if it did there would be very bad consequences for it. It cannot do whatever it wants. Its trade and western financial support would disappear if it went round nuking and invading other countries at a whim.

I'm not sure about that. Reckon US/UK would still back Israel if they nuked Iran. Look at the slaughter at Gaza last year and the US still isn't stopping them steal more land in the west bank.

cavedave

Bottle_of_Smoke I would say the realpolitik is that none of the arab countries that produce oil really care about the Palestinians. They could house, feed and generally help the Palestinians but it serves their political interests to leave them in basically a giant refugee camp to make Israel look bad.

If Israel nuked Iran oil would go to 200 dollars a barrel. The seventies oil crisis was basically a way for opec to punish the west "in response to the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military". US/UK really do not want that.

So it is in their interests to not let Israel not to get too heavy.

Highly Salami

Shur why not give nuclear weapons to everyone!
Then there will be no arguments and complete peace (well maybe not).

Bottle_of_Smoke

cavedave wrote: »

Bottle_of_Smoke I would say the realpolitik is that none of the arab countries that produce oil really care about the Palestinians. They could house, feed and generally help the Palestinians but it serves their political interests to leave them in basically a giant refugee camp to make Israel look bad.

If Israel nuked Iran oil would go to 200 dollars a barrel. The seventies oil crisis was basically a way for opec to punish the west "in response to the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military". US/UK really do not want that.

So it is in their interests to not let Israel not to get too heavy.

I think that might be the case if Israel say sent a nuke into Tehran. However if they were to nuke an enrichment facility I'd wager US/UK would back them up.

bmaxi

The reasons the U.S., or indeed Russia, U.K. France etc. oppose Iran's having nuclear weapons is not simply a question of Israel. As in the case of North Korea they are not so much afraid of their having nuclear weapons as to who they will supply with them.

cavedave

However if they were to nuke an enrichment facility I'd wager US/UK would back them up

Quite possibly if they nuked a mountain with limited civilian deaths they might be able to cope with the backlash. Actually I would assume they would not launch such an attack without tacit US approval first.

You still have the risk that after such an attack the Saudi's (who hate the Iranians) and everyone else would turn off the oil taps.

Bueno de Mesquita has a podcast here on why he thinks Iran won't develop a nuclear weapon.

dlofnep

I don't think that nukes are the answer IMO. We need to rid the world of nuclear weapons. I would rather see heavy sanctions on Israel for their nuclear weapons, than see Iran have them.

thebaldsoprano

That philosophiser dude Slavoj Zizek wrote an article about this a while back.

It can be found here:

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2280/

fontanalis

A leadership convinced they are doing gods work and nukes = win all around

pearcider

Ridiculous OP. A nuclear Iran would mqake further conflict certain for the simple fact that Iran is a rogue state. It's people are routinely oppressed and tortured by the secret police. It's so called government is really a small cabal of corrupt, paranoid, religious fanatics who believe in the literal truth of the Koran with all the apocalyptic connotations that implies. It has a highly immature foreign policy who engage in the most juvenile of rhetoric against their neighbours & virtually the entire western world..their foreign policy would be comical were it not so terrifying. It pays lip service to democratic institutions - the elections are consistently rigged. In reality, it is an Islamic theocracy with well founded links to numerous terrorist acts. To compare it to Israel reveals a blind bias since nobody in their right mind would doubt that Iran is the more dangerous and least developed country. It is in a perpetual state of revolution imo and such an unstable Iran should not be allowed nuclear weapons.

This picture says it all imo...from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_2009_Iranian_presidential_election




I think I'm on the Blue Team there... :rolleyes:

dlofnep

pearcider wrote: »

To compare it to Israel reveals a blind bias since nobody in their right mind would doubt that Iran is the more dangerous

Tell me exactly when the last time Iran attacked another nation.. And in the same period - tell me how many times Israel has attacked another nation.

Iran is less dangerous than Israel, because it knows that an attack by it towards another soverign nation would give the US the excuse it needs to pound it out with bombs.

Israel on the other hand has the US's backing - and is quite frankly able to do whatever it likes, without fear of reprisal. This was evident after it's invasion of Gaza which they killed nearly 1000 civilians, over 300 of which were children - and is further evident by it's continuous illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, and illegal settlements.

Israel is one of the most dangerous nations in the world, and I don't say that lightly.

So when you say "nobody in their right mind" - What you really mean is that, nobody in "your" mindset would believe Israel is more dangerous.

Pappy o' daniel

Nuclear powers will never go to war with each other. They have too much to lose, an individual can commit suicide but not a country.


Iran is too big a country to be kept under the thumb of Israel for too much longer.


pearcider you could say the same for Pakistan or N. Korea, but nobody cared too much about them getting nukes. The reason there is so much talk about Iran is because it will stop Israeli hegemony. I don't like the idea of Iran having nukes but it is the only way I can see some balance of power in the region. And the only comparison I made between Iran and Israel is that they are the two principles in the region.

Zombrex

Pappy o' daniel wrote: »

Nuclear weapons bring peace, ironic but evident.

Well not exactly. Nuclear weapons bring peace so long as no one is stupid enough to use them. Then they bring large scale destruction.

Iran will never get the Bomb because Israel will happily bomb their nuclear program back to the stone age before they do because Israel don't trust Iran not to use nuclear weapons.

cavedave

Pappy o' daniel

Nuclear powers will never go to war with each other. They have too much to lose, an individual can commit suicide but not a country.

what probability would you give to Nuclear powers going to war with each other? Virtually nothing has probability 0 as you seem to suggest this does.
countries that have committed suicide. Nazi Germany, Somalia, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Iraq. Loads of countries have allowed the rule of law to collapse

cavedave

McNamara reporting Castro saying Cuba would have committed suicide during the Cuban missile crisis.

"I want to say, and this is very important: at the end we lucked out. It was luck that prevented nuclear war. We came that close to nuclear war at the end. Rational individuals: Kennedy was rational; Khrushchev was rational; Castro was rational. Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies. And that danger exists today.~" Robert McNamara

BlaasForRafa

I see the usual anti-Israeli crowd is out and about hijacking threads again.

dlofnep

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I see the usual anti-Israeli crowd is out and about hijacking threads again.

AKA - You've nothing to contribute to thread? How about offering a rebuttal to some points made, rather than following suit of the Zionists, attacking the character of people - rather than the actual discussion at hand.

bmaxi

dlofnep wrote: »

Iran is less dangerous than Israel, because it knows that an attack by it towards another soverign nation would give the US the excuse it needs to pound it out with bombs.


Israel is one of the most dangerous nations in the world, and I don't say that lightly.

While I wouldn't be a great supporter of Israel, to say that Iran, particularly a nuclear armed Iran, is less dangerous is stretching it a bit.
It's possible the only reason Iran has not attacked Israel is because they don't have nuclear weapons, if they had them they would be in a much stronger position to threaten U.S. allies in the Gulf and so the weapons would act as a deterrent to the U.S. without ever having to be used.
The Iranian leadership has shown itself to be unstable and irrational, it is not known what they may be capable of. The best scenario is not to let them aquire the arms in the first place.

fontanalis

bmaxi wrote: »

While I wouldn't be a great supporter of Israel, to say that Iran, particularly a nuclear armed Iran, is less dangerous is stretching it a bit.
It's possible the only reason Iran has not attacked Israel is because they don't have nuclear weapons, if they had them they would be in a much stronger position to threaten U.S. allies in the Gulf and so the weapons would act as a deterrent to the U.S. without ever having to be used.
The Iranian leadership has shown itself to be unstable and irrational, it is not known what they may be capable of. The best scenario is not to let them aquire the arms in the first place.

Bingo.

dlofnep

bmaxi wrote: »

While I wouldn't be a great supporter of Israel, to say that Iran, particularly a nuclear armed Iran, is less dangerous is stretching it a bit.

I didn't say a nuclear Iran. I was referring to present day Iran.

And to be honest, I don't think Iran would use nuclear weapons even if they had them. They would probably just have them for show-and-tell security - as a deterrant. Also you should note that I stated in my original post that I didn't want Iran to actually have nukes.

Scofflaw

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I see the usual anti-Israeli crowd is out and about hijacking threads again.

If this is all you can contribute, please don't.

moderately,
Scofflaw

evercloserunion

Wicknight wrote: »

Well not exactly. Nuclear weapons bring peace so long as no one is stupid enough to use them. Then they bring large scale destruction.

Well, technically, the only time someone has ever been stupid enough (though perhaps cruel, heartless and ruthless would be better terms than stupid) to use nuclear weapons they have brought peace - but at the cost of large scale destruction.

Still though, history bears out the analysis in the OP; the only time nukes have ever been used in wartime was when one nation had a monopoly on them. Once the Russians developed nukes the US could no longer afford to use them in conflicts. Potentially to the benefit of millions.

I would agree that Iran having nukes would provide a welcome counter-balance to Israel's dominance in the area, though Israel would continue to dominate because of their US backing and the fact is that Iran gaining nukes would do little to stop the war crimes taking place in Gaza. However, the main problem with Iran gaining nuukes is the one highlighted above, namely that they could supply them to dodgy characters.

Mike 1972

evercloserunion wrote: »

Well, technically, the only time someone has ever been stupid enough (though perhaps cruel, heartless and ruthless would be better terms than stupid) to use nuclear weapons they have brought peace.

Thats pretty questionable.

bmaxi

dlofnep wrote: »

I didn't say a nuclear Iran. I was referring to present day Iran.

And to be honest, I don't think Iran would use nuclear weapons even if they had them. They would probably just have them for show-and-tell security - as a deterrant. Also you should note that I stated in my original post that I didn't want Iran to actually have nukes.

The whole thrust ot the thread has been a nuclear armed Iran.
Personally I don't share your confidence in Iran's leadership to act rationally, like any unstable character, what might push them over the brink is an unknown quantity.

dlofnep

bmaxi wrote: »

The whole thrust ot the thread has been a nuclear armed Iran.
Personally I don't share your confidence in Iran's leadership to act rationally, like any unstable character, what might push them over the brink is an unknown quantity.

I can see why you might think that - And personally, I think the Iranian leadership is questionable. But we need to analyse Iran's past. They don't have a history of attacking other nations.

If they did secure nuclear weapons (and they very well might), I think it would only be to level up the playing field, and not with intent to nuke Israel.

Imagine what would happen if they did? First - there would be a large-scale, immediate invasion of Iran that would result is mass loss of life. Believe me, Iran would not envy to be in that position.

I don't think that the Iranian leadership is rational, but I don't feel that they would ever attack another nation with a nuclear weapon as an offensive attack. My feeling on the matter is that they are not happy with the US trying to control who can, and who can't have weaponary - and with the constant threats of invasion by Israel of the US. They want something on the bargaining table to ensure that they have a reasonable say in their own military affairs - rather than have a nuke for the sake of murdering millions of people.

If any of the above sounds wrong to you, please - tell me.

jimmycrackcorm

Why does Iran need nuclear weapons?
Why would Isreal attack it - or is that what is meant by saying they will go to war again?
If Iran did get nuclear weapons, presumably because Isreal may attck, then isn't it more likely to lead to a pre-emptive attack?

dlofnep

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Why does Iran need nuclear weapons?

It doesn't. But see above as to why they might want them.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Why would Isreal attack it - or is that what is meant by saying they will go to war again?

Israel has threatened to attack Iran on many occasions.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If Iran did get nuclear weapons, presumably because Isreal may attck, then isn't it more likely to lead to a pre-emptive attack?

No, probably more to a stalemate like India/Pakistan is at right now. It would just mean that Israel wouldn't be able to push it's weight around as much, and Iran would have more input in matters in the middle east. That would be the idea anyway. It's really hard to predict such matters. We can only guess.

20Cent

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Why does Iran need nuclear weapons?
Why would Isreal attack it - or is that what is meant by saying they will go to war again?
If Iran did get nuclear weapons, presumably because Isreal may attck, then isn't it more likely to lead to a pre-emptive attack?

Sarah Palin recently said that attacking Iran would be a good policy for Obama. She was close to the nuke button and could be in the future. The Republican party seem to want to Bomb Bomb bomb Iran.
They saw what happened to Iraq.
Israel has Nukes.

No wonder they want them.

cavedave

I think people are neglecting how the other Middle eastern powers do not want Iran to have Nukes. My understanding is that the predominantly Sunni middle eastern countries dislike the Iranian Shi'a's (who are not even Arabs).

The US seems if not to have control over Egypt the Saudi's and the other gulf states at least some influence. I'd imagine these states would regard an increasingly powerful Iran with suspicion. Their lack of support for Hamas seems to indicate they are not on the same team as Iran. "Many were surprised when Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the other Sunni powers quietly cheered on Israel in its battles against Hezbollah and later Hamas"

So are Iranian nukes really a threat to other middle eastern countries and that power balance rather than just Israel?

joesoap007

cavedave wrote: »

Bottle_of_Smoke I would say the realpolitik is that none of the arab countries that produce oil really care about the Palestinians. They could house, feed and generally help the Palestinians but it serves their political interests to leave them in basically a giant refugee camp to make Israel look bad.

If Israel nuked Iran oil would go to 200 dollars a barrel. The seventies oil crisis was basically a way for opec to punish the west "in response to the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military". US/UK really do not want that.

So it is in their interests to not let Israel not to get too heavy.

why dosein israel house, feed and generally help the Palestinians ?after all its them who kicked em off their own land ,the only thing that makes israel look bad is israel
o its not israel ITS PALESTINE

iran has the god giving right to have nuke power,it would mean more oil on the market and cheeper prices no?,,,the zionists have nukes but their uranium needs to be Enriched so at the moment their nukes are not worth a toss,and with iran looking to Enrich their uranium now they would have a better grade of uranium then the zionist,,,,so we will see another smoking gun story that turns in to [EMAIL="bullsh@t"]bullsh@t[/EMAIL] so paranoid people can go to war.iran has 1100 missiles ready to be launched at bases in the middle east if atacked,most are from cold war tho,id say leve iran alone zionists will be the end of us all,

joesoap007

cavedave wrote: »

McNamara reporting Castro saying Cuba would have committed suicide during the Cuban missile crisis.

"I want to say, and this is very important: at the end we lucked out. It was luck that prevented nuclear war. We came that close to nuclear war at the end. Rational individuals: Kennedy was rational; Khrushchev was rational; Castro was rational. Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies. And that danger exists today.~" Robert McNamara

robet McNamara now theirs a lier, nuclear war he says, just ask him about the uss liberty

cavedave

joesoap007
robet McNamara now theirs a lier, nuclear war he says, just ask him about the uss liberty

You can't he's dead. The fog of war is a good film. You dont get the impression he admits to war crimes out of ego. Even if you dont believe him many other people talk about how close we repeatedly came to nuclear war. So to dismiss it as a possibility is unwise.

joesoap007

why dosein israel house, feed and generally help the Palestinians ?

Because they don't like the Palestinians.

iran has the god giving right to have nuke power,it would mean more oil on the market and cheeper prices no

It is unlikely it would reduce the price of oil much at the moment. The price of a litre of petrol in Iran is about 20 cent, for political reasons. And even nuclear cannot compete with that price to the Iranians.

BluePlanet

cavedave wrote: »

Their lack of support for Hamas seems to indicate they are not on the same team as Iran. "Many were surprised when Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the other Sunni powers quietly cheered on Israel in its battles against Hezbollah and later Hamas"

Sounds like rubbish to me.

wes

cavedave wrote: »

It is unlikely it would reduce the price of oil much at the moment. The price of a litre of petrol in Iran is about 20 cent, for political reasons. And even nuclear cannot compete with that price to the Iranians.

Well, the oil will eventually run out, and Western nations are looking to Nuclear as a stop gap when the oil runs out. So Iran has the exact same reasons for wanting nuclear power, as Western ones do for expanding it.

Pappy o' daniel

Im trying to look at it dispassionately, like they were pieces on a board game.
"what would I do if I was Israel?", "What would I do if I was Iran?"

Israel will certainly attack Iran, probably within 6 months, a nuclear Iran would end its dominance so its understandable.

Iran knows by developing nukes it is hastening an attack on itself, but it also knows that if it developes and tests a nuke
it would not be threatened by Israel again.

cavedave

If they wanted to preseve oil for future use they would not sell petrol at 20 cent a liter.

As an aside nuclear is the only currently practical way we will get power. And Thorium not uranium or plutonium will be the nuclear fuel (partly due to weapons proliferation worries). Bill Gates told me

BluePlanet

Sounds like rubbish to me.

Google "Egypt Hamas support" (or Saudi) and you get a collection of articles with "we hate israel so we kind of like Hamas, but not really" sentiments. For example here, here, here and here.

Pappy o' daniel

cavedave wrote: »

I think people are neglecting how the other Middle eastern powers do not want Iran to have Nukes. My understanding is that the predominantly Sunni middle eastern countries dislike the Iranian Shi'a's (who are not even Arabs).

The US seems if not to have control over Egypt the Saudi's and the other gulf states at least some influence. I'd imagine these states would regard an increasingly powerful Iran with suspicion. Their lack of support for Hamas seems to indicate they are not on the same team as Iran. "Many were surprised when Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the other Sunni powers quietly cheered on Israel in its battles against Hezbollah and later Hamas"

So are Iranian nukes really a threat to other middle eastern countries and that power balance rather than just Israel?

Good point. Saudi's feel threatened by Iran, and while they hate Israel, they probably hate Iran more.
But most of these gulf states are basically protectorates of America. America will protect them and in return these states pretty much do what America wants.
I read that Saudi arabia bought 120 F-15s, even though they only had 12 pilots that could actually fly them.

Time Magazine

Nuclear weapons make the world a lot more dangerous.

All that happens is a shift in the distribution to more severe wars. There's less chance of war in any given period but when it happens - and if world history has taught us anything it's that war is almost inevitable - it is destructive beyond anything imaginable. Think Haiti was bad? Think again.

Focusing on peace between India and Pakistan over a fifty year period is extremely myopic.

fuelinjection

Pakistan has nukes so the "Muslim bomb" threat exists for years now.

Iran is not perfect but it is an Islamic Republic, unlike the military run Pakinstan.
My own belief is to judge countries by their actions... has Pakinstan (or India) used their weapons ? No.
Has the USA ?

Also which states openly kills people they do not like ? Iran ? No.
But Mossad have free reign to kill at leisure.

cavedave

fuelinjection
Also which states openly kills people they do not like ? Iran ? No.

Ten seconds of googling will show you iran kills people it doesnt like. For instance gays

Homosexuals deserve to be executed or tortured and possibly both, an Iranian leader told British MPs during a private meeting at a peace conference, The Times has learnt.

Iran: Two More Executions for Homosexual Conduct
Iran Executes Two Homosexual Boys

BluePlanet

cavedave wrote: »

If

Google "Egypt Hamas support" (or Saudi) and you get a collection of articles with "we hate israel so we kind of like Hamas, but not really" sentiments. For example here, here, here and here.

While those links make a point that Saudi and Egypt have gone cold on support for Hamas, they do not state that those countries are quietly cheerleading Israel.

Actually, edit that to: Those links are Opinion columns, making a point that...

bmaxi

dlofnep wrote: »

I can see why you might think that - And personally, I think the Iranian leadership is questionable. But we need to analyse Iran's past. They don't have a history of attacking other nations.

If they did secure nuclear weapons (and they very well might), I think it would only be to level up the playing field, and not with intent to nuke Israel.

Imagine what would happen if they did? First - there would be a large-scale, immediate invasion of Iran that would result is mass loss of life. Believe me, Iran would not envy to be in that position.

I don't think that the Iranian leadership is rational, but I don't feel that they would ever attack another nation with a nuclear weapon as an offensive attack. My feeling on the matter is that they are not happy with the US trying to control who can, and who can't have weaponary - and with the constant threats of invasion by Israel of the US. They want something on the bargaining table to ensure that they have a reasonable say in their own military affairs - rather than have a nuke for the sake of murdering millions of people.

If any of the above sounds wrong to you, please - tell ame.

Again, when you are dealing with irrational people you cannot predict what they will do in any given circumstance.
Their President has said, only in the last few weeks, that Israel should be removed from the face of the earth. Hardly the words of someone simply seeking a better bargaining position.
Perhaps the reason Iran hasn't been belligerent toward others is that up to now they haven't had the capability,
once they have the capability, all bets would be off and Israel may not be the only target.
As to the U.S. deciding who has and hasn't got nuclear weapons I'm not sure they could have prevented Israel from having them. Jewish physicists, after all, played a major part in inventing and developing nuclear weapons. I'm pretty sure that they would have acquired them anyway if it was perceived their people were under threat. Like them or not the Jews have few peers when it comes to ingenuity.
Far from levelling the playing pitch, Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would only start an arms race in the region, there are others there, including Saudi, Egypt and even Pakistan, who would not be too happy with the situation.

The threat of a U.S. invasion is made more likely by the Iranians' efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and if it is to come it will come before they acquire the weapons, so presumably the best way to avert it is to give up their quest.

BluePlanet

bmaxi wrote: »

Again, when you are dealing with irrational people you cannot predict what they will do in any given circumstance.
Their President has said, only in the last few weeks, that Israel should be removed from the face of the earth.

It's an oft-repeated phrase but slightly lacking in truth.

North Korea is a case in point. ONce they acquired the ability to develop nuclear bombs, suddenly it's hands-off.
Same with Pakistan.
If Iran is serious about defending itself from the threats coming from USA, it must aquire nuclear arms as a matter of priority.

It's not Iran that puts warships on USA's coast.
It's not Iran that shot down a civilian airliner flying that was flying it's scheduled route.

People here may not like Iran, Iranians or the regime in charge, but they don't have to. That doesn't change the fact that Iran has the right to pursue nuclear technology, at least for civilian purposes. Nor does it excuse the USA of using it's nuclear arms as a threat, nor does it excuse existing nuclear powers of failing to disarm per the Non Proliferation Treaty.

dlofnep

bmaxi wrote: »

Again, when you are dealing with irrational people you cannot predict what they will do in any given circumstance.

Many considered the actions of the US Government to be irrational in the past. The Israeli Government is not rational either. The difference is, Iran has not attacked another nation. They have lived true to their word. While internally, they might be mental - I don't see them preemptively attacking another nation and have not seen any evidence presently or in the past to state otherwise. However, if you have some new-found evidence that suggests otherwise and want to enlighten us - please, post it - I'd be more than happy to read it.

bmaxi wrote: »

Their President has said, only in the last few weeks, that Israel should be removed from the face of the earth.

When did their president state that? Please provide me with a direct quote of what he said, with an accurate translation.

bmaxi wrote: »

Perhaps the reason Iran hasn't been belligerent toward others is that up to now they haven't had the capability, once they have the capability, all bets would be off and Israel may not be the only target.

Sorry, that's nonsense. But please - do list your potential targets for an Iranian attack. I'd love to hear them.

anymore

BluePlanet wrote: »

It's an oft-repeated phrase but slightly lacking in truth.

North Korea is a case in point. Once they acquired the ability to develop nuclear bombs, suddenly it's hands-off.
Same with Pakistan.
If Iran is serious about defending itself from the threats coming from USA, it must acquire nuclear arms as a matter of priority.

It's not Iran that puts warships on USA's coast.
It's not Iran that shot down a civilian airliner flying that was flying it's scheduled route.

People here may not like Iran, Iranians or the regime in charge, but they don't have to. That doesn't change the fact that Iran has the right to pursue nuclear technology, at least for civilian purposes. Nor does it excuse the USA of using it's nuclear arms as a threat, nor does it excuse existing nuclear powers of failing to disarm per the Non Proliferation Treaty.

One of the uncomfortable truths for those opposed to Iran getting the bomb, is that the sense of insecurity arising from the fact that the US, France and the UK supplied Saddam's Iraq with intelligence and arms before and during the Iraq Iran war and that the UK supplied Iraq with material used ti developed its nerve gas which was used against Iran.
Nor is it too widely publicised that Iran is opposed to the Taliban and had previously offered the US assistance in fighting the Taliban threat to the world; an offer that was rejected.
There are some rational reasons why an isolated Iran would seek to acquire nuclear weapons.

fuelinjection

Iran is a Republic, Pakistan is not.
The debate should be if Pakistan and India have a nuclear war and not what Iran may do with nuclear weapons.
Bear in mind that Israel was the first middle-east country with nukes so anything that happens after that is a re-action to their action.

wes

fuelinjection wrote: »

Iran is a Republic, Pakistan is not.

Um, what....:

From the CIA factbook:
Country name:
conventional long form: Islamic Republic of Pakistan
conventional short form: Pakistan
local long form: Jamhuryat Islami Pakistan
local short form: Pakistan
former: West Pakistan

Pakistan is a Islamic Republic, like Iran. Now to be fair, Pakistan has a mix of secular and religous laws.

fuelinjection wrote: »

The debate should be if Pakistan and India have a nuclear war and not what Iran may do with nuclear weapons.

Well, thankfully they haven't had one.

fuelinjection wrote: »

Bear in mind that Israel was the first middle-east country with nukes so anyhing that happens after that is a re-action to their action.

True enough.