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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
If Iran or any other country dared to launch a nuclear attack against Israel they would be vaporised themselves immediately afterwards.
That is why Iran would never attack Israel.
Haven't you heard of the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction? I suggest you look it up.
They said they wouldnt give me any nukes
Especially when the alternative (i.e. preventing Iran from having nukes by the use of force) is going to make things in the region even worse than they are now.
You would have thought that after seeing how well our adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq are going people would have finally worked out that the use of force is not an option.
It might bring stability to the Middle East - though personally I think that's unlikely. In reality its more likely to trigger a nuclear arms race, which may or may not lead to nuclear war, but certainly makes it more likely than if Iran didn't have nukes.
I'm not sure about you but given the choice I always prefer going for the option which is less likely to have the Middle East turned into a radioactive dust bowl
For all the talk about mad ayatollahs and blah blah blah I'm far more worried about that appears to be a bloodthirsty lunatic in charge of a nuclear nation who might get tired of fighting those dirty Arabs the conventional way and decides to wipe them all out in one easy stroke.
Wouldn't put it past the bastard that's for sure.
No I don't. Not nearly as much as when you have a 'murdering brute' and a 'deranged religous pyschotic' with nukes anyway.
But for all the talk about bloodthirsty brutes in israel, blah, blah, blah he's never talked about wiping another nation of the map and to be honested compared to what they could do with just conventional weapons Israel is deploying no where near its full force so its unlikely they'll feel the need to nuke Lebanon anytime soon. Plus I think they'll not been keen on dropping a nuclear bomb next door, wind and radiation and all that.
And if any militant group started to fiire rockets from a third country (say Syria, Iran or even Jordan), and if Israel found it had to start a war against those countries too, the man currently in charge (who makes Ariel Sharon Nobel Peace Prize material by comparison) might be tempted to think 'the hell with this' and teach those pesky Arabs a real lesson.
As you said the only drawback would be nuclear fallout. But with newer, smaller and cleaner nukes being developed by the US (so they could in Israeli shelves soon) nuking someone only a few hundred miles away might become a possibility.
That's why I think that if Iran became nuclear it might not be such a bad thing after all.
There have been far too many problems in the region already from one nation having overwhelming military superiority over the others.
It might but you seem to be putting in place an awful lot of assumptions on Israel and none at all on Iran (apart from the fact they wouldn't use nukes). That's not a balanced view of the risks.
(PS the reason Israel got nukes is that previously the problems were caused by all the other nations wanting to have military superiority over Israel).
Do you see that as acceptable ?
Yes and Israel and others have a right to stop them.
Nobody has a 'right' to attack other nations. A right that ain't.
Call it what you will, but quite frankly its irrelevant, no sane country will allow someone calling for its destruction to get nuclear weapons if there is any way to stop it.
Iran's got itself into this mess, now its got to take the consequences. if its got any sense it'll decide not to develop them in return for some nicer juicy economic bribes (and the cynic in me believes this is what they're actually doing and just upping the ante for a bigger pay-off), but if it doesn't, kapow go its nuclear facilities and all the crocodile tears in the world about big, bad bullying Israel will not make the slightest bit of difference.
Never mind that it will make things worse. Never mind that it's all just empty words and propaganda playing up to the masses.
That's fine for you to say. if you're wrong it will be personally embarrassing. if decision makers in tel Aviv are wrong it means not only their deaths, but that of millions of others. You have the luxury they don't.
If every country in the world took the view that any possible threat from other countries however vague cannot be tolerated and must be dealt with by force, mankind would have already ceased to exist as we know it.
But needless to say the meaningless ramblings of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are music to the ears of the Israeli and US governments as it gives them all the excuse they claim to need to continue their geopolitical games and long term foreign policies.
Yes and if every country shrugged off when people threaten to destroy them we'd also be fucked. Responsibility towards others is fine, but not if that may result ibn your own destruction - to think otherwise is just naive.
Am I understanding you here ? If someone advocates another`s destruction,NQA would consider "A.N.Other" insane if they did not attack that very advocate. :chin: