If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Iran's nuclear program............
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I'm curious what people's views are on this, with respect to....
- america's right to dictate what iran can and cannot develop.........surely this should be left to the u.n........especially in light of the most recent cock-up, where iraqi blood is spilt everyday because we thought saddam was coming for us.... :yeees:......(in case you forgot we didn't go in to spread democracy, it was WMD's, ssssh....)
- why it would be so dangerous for iran to have nuke capability, i don't think they would use it except in retaliation, don't forget it was MAD that supposedly prevented the cold war from escalating, right now it's israel holding all the nukes but noone says a peep about that......... :chin:.............surely an unequal playing field is more dangerous than an equal one, take pakistan and india right now for instance.........and then take the u.s. and iraq.........
- what their current nuclear program is for, energy or weapons capability? personally i think a bit of both, they look around and see u.s. didn't need proof to attack iraq, the only thing holding them at bay in korea is nukes......makes perfect sense to me, they can't really win no matter what they do............
- america have been covertly spying in iran for months now, and everyone knows the CIA have a record of fucking these secret interventions up and they usually escalate into full blown violence e.g. overthrowing Iranian govt in 1953, the Phoenix program in Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Laos, Iran-contras.......the list is endless.
i really think iran are screwed, whatever they do their time is up soon, this is just the latest.........if israel do go ahead with this i can't see iran lying down, they have military alliances with china and russia, and that's when things really get interesting........
- america's right to dictate what iran can and cannot develop.........surely this should be left to the u.n........especially in light of the most recent cock-up, where iraqi blood is spilt everyday because we thought saddam was coming for us.... :yeees:......(in case you forgot we didn't go in to spread democracy, it was WMD's, ssssh....)
- why it would be so dangerous for iran to have nuke capability, i don't think they would use it except in retaliation, don't forget it was MAD that supposedly prevented the cold war from escalating, right now it's israel holding all the nukes but noone says a peep about that......... :chin:.............surely an unequal playing field is more dangerous than an equal one, take pakistan and india right now for instance.........and then take the u.s. and iraq.........
- what their current nuclear program is for, energy or weapons capability? personally i think a bit of both, they look around and see u.s. didn't need proof to attack iraq, the only thing holding them at bay in korea is nukes......makes perfect sense to me, they can't really win no matter what they do............
- america have been covertly spying in iran for months now, and everyone knows the CIA have a record of fucking these secret interventions up and they usually escalate into full blown violence e.g. overthrowing Iranian govt in 1953, the Phoenix program in Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Laos, Iran-contras.......the list is endless.
i really think iran are screwed, whatever they do their time is up soon, this is just the latest.........if israel do go ahead with this i can't see iran lying down, they have military alliances with china and russia, and that's when things really get interesting........
0
Comments
Hell, Iran gave America a kicking once, are they REALLY stupid enough to go back? Bear in mind Iran has upgraded its armed forces since...
If Israel does that, I daresay Iran will flatten Israel. Then the US invades Iran, and Iran's allies won't sit back at this, they will have supported the flattening of Israel. America starts to loose, gets humpty and nukes them. They nuke back. Then...
Welcome, my freind, to the Apocalypse. Cup of Tea?
Ok, then ending is improbable, no one will hopefully nuke the other party. It'll be bloodshed if Israel does that. Although I feel it'd be a case of Poetic Justice.
And certainly there are much more grounds for forcing some of those countries to get rid of their nukes than there are for preventing Iran from getting some.
I wish hypocrisy caused people to die of hemorrhagic fever...
Much hype about nothing. AGAIN. Bloody Bush regime hyping it up again.
I'm just not all that sure the leadership of Iran is all that stable.
As for a possible target, I'm sure there are certain sections of the Iranian leadership who'd like to see Israel out of the way.
ETA: another fact is with global politics, you're not treated seriously unless you have nukes, and then the u.s. start pandering to you, which gives entirely the wrong message out.........even now iran are being offered all sorts of prizes for dropping nuclear program.......
I dont want Israel to have nukes, same as I dont want Iran to have nukes.
Just because one has them doesnt make it right for all to have them.
Thats crazy, you might as well say 'well the US has nukes I want them myself'.
Lets face it there are nations we would rather have nukes and nations we'd rather not.
To me, Iran is one of those nations I'd rather not have them.
Agreed. You actually think their responsible enough to have this type of firepower at their disposal? I do think a country like that would use them just like North Korea would.
I didnt really say that the US were or were not responsible with their nukes.
I agree with you that I'd rather see everyone without nukes.
But, given that we are in the real world where people do have them the question arrises who do we and who dont we want to have them?
I think the 'nukes for all makes it a level playing field' arguement is bollox. I'll have a couple if we're going to do that.
that comment was in reply to felix, and not specifically nukes although america are still the ONLY country to ever use a nuke, hiroshima anyone?
think about this carefully.......in an ideal world yes noone would have nukes but......look at examples where both opposing sides have nukes e.g. cold war, india/pakistan, neither side will risk using them because of MAD, that's the only assurance you get with nukes......
say you and i have a plot of land, man being inherently greedy i say i want what you got, give it to me, or ill nuke you, you get scared shitless and probably hand over your land in order to survive, or i nuke you and you die..........whereas if you have a nuke you say nah piss off i'll nuke you, and that's where it ends, we would rather co-exist than non-exist.........if you can't see this argument i can't make it any clearer......
I can see the logic, but that assumes that all leaders opperate in a logical way, that they dont want to die, that they wouldnt sacrifice 100,000's of lives just for their cause....which isnt always true.
However, even if he did he's quite secure at the moment so why would he go for a doomsday scenario. It might not feel the same when he got's hungry mobs screaming at his door and nuking Seoul (which he hates much more than Washington) might seem a more attractive alternative.
That said the two worst places to have them at the moment are India and Pakistan - simply because they have a history of war and who's to say bnext time it won't escelate leading to a 'minor' exchange of nukes...
And yet we somehow think it is okay for that warmongering pariah government to own the biggest arsenal of WMDs ever seen to continue to own those weapons, but not okay for a nation that has not started any wars in living memory to try to acquire their own?
In particular when the former keeps threatening to attack the latter, and the nukes are nowadays the ONLY form of protection against the New Empire...
Everyone has a right to defend themselves. This situation is solely the fault of the aggressive, warmongering foreign policy of the USA- and to a lesser degree, to the arsenal of WMDs a certain country in the Middle East possesses and is allowed to keep without so much as an objection.
lol if he didnt have nukes america would have got rid a long time ago for sure........maybe they can't hit the u.s. who knows, i dont think they're prepared to take that risk.........he could certainly kick up a stink anyways, that's why noone is provoking him, instead he is getting a say in negotiations........
that's my point......if he did attack seoul that's all the reason america or anyone else would need to flatten n. korea, he's not stupid......
i agree it's hardly ideal, however the fact they both have them at the minute means there is a stand-off.........and i'm sorry i fail to see how you can have a 'minor' exchange of nukes :chin: .........where would it end?....
I suspect that's the way we're going to go in nuclear weapons. No countries going to give them up so the next logical step is to try and defend against them with 'Star Wars II' and survivability against limited nuclear strikes.
Pandora's box anyone?
Wish they bloody would finish it. Fireworks night is going to rock soon. :thumb:
Hmm, it will never be 100% effective. Ever.
Nukes aren't going to go away so countries will try and look at ways to neutralise them and to make there own nukes more effective to stop the enemy blocking their attacks...
Kinda makes it all seem futile, no?
For the arms manufacturers it isn't futile at all .........
He gains jobs in certain states, he gets a bloated government with more jobs, he gets a false sense of security....