Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

There is no reason for Iran to have anything nuclear, its a country that wishes to 'wipe Israel off the map' and most probably others. if we let this happen, it is mearly appeasement and will lead to another war. Our nuclear weapons are a deterrant but does that mean we should go to war?

The more bombs there are the faster WWIII comes.

Originally posted by ash007
There is no reason for Iran to have anything nuclear, its a country that wishes to 'wipe Israel off the map' and most probably others. if we let this happen, it is mearly appeasement and will lead to another war. Our nuclear weapons are a deterrant but does that mean we should go to war?


3 words..

"World War three"

Fin

Originally posted by whobdamandog
3 words..

"World War three"

Fin

indeed we DON'T want World War Three.

So shouldn't we invade Iran before they fully develop them?

should you kill a random person on the street with the reasoning that they may have been about to kill you?

if yes where does that stop? do you have to kill everyone on that street? everyone you ever meet? everyone on the planet?

Originally posted by Scoobless
should you kill a random person on the street with the reasoning that they may have been about to kill you?

if yes where does that stop? do you have to kill everyone on that street? everyone you ever meet? everyone on the planet?

I don't think that is an adequate example of determent considering the Iranian leader called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map.'
Even if the U.N. puts sanctions on Iran ten bucks says that it won't do a bloody thing.

Oh well...this is the world we live in.

Originally posted by Echuu
Oh well...this is the world we live in.

not for long by the sound of it ....

Originally posted by Scoobless
should you kill a random person on the street with the reasoning that they may have been about to kill you?

if yes where does that stop? do you have to kill everyone on that street? everyone you ever meet? everyone on the planet?


Would you give a gun to murderer.

Would you let a Pedophile work with children.

First of all, WW3 is already happening, but it is unlike any war we have ever fought, one very much occurring "below the radar." Our enemy is a medieval, obsolete mindset which is determined to destroy all that which does not conform to its limited, infantile, ranting, foaming-at-the-mouth view of the world.

The real fear regarding Iraq (not the manufactured one by Bush & co) is that, as a terrorist state, it had the finances and hardware to develop a nuclear weapon, but not the delivery system. Terrorists provide the delivery system. Iraq, however, has been taken out of the picture...but Iran has not.

They Will build a bomb, and they Will use terrorists as their delivery system. I say "will" because this is a scenario we Can Not afford to think otherwise on. Comparisons to individuals (as in an above post) or discussing this in abstraction does not do justice to the potential physical, psychological and financial damage a nuke detonated in a city will cause.

My guess is, within the first quarter of this century, someone Will get nuked. It is almost inevitable. It may not be NYC, it may not even be the US, but some country Is gonna get hit (could well be Israel).

The state of affairs our world is in sucks big time. It is horrific having to send brave young men and women to fight a war and die, especially as a preventitive, pre-emptive measure. But if we don't...the far, far worse is yet to come.

Originally posted by ash007
There is no reason for Iran to have anything nuclear, its a country that wishes to 'wipe Israel off the map' and most probably others. if we let this happen, it is mearly appeasement and will lead to another war. Our nuclear weapons are a deterrant but does that mean we should go to war?


Yeah know I am sure the USA has agendas and those nuclear weapons we have help to serve them nicely.

That said nuclear weapons are horrible so do you believe the USA has the right to tell another country what it can and cannot do? At the end of the day thats whats really being asked in my opinion.

Originally posted by Scoobless
should you kill a random person on the street with the reasoning that they may have been about to kill you?

if yes where does that stop? do you have to kill everyone on that street? everyone you ever meet? everyone on the planet?


This is a made world, click here to see.

To wager a guess, I don't think a nuclear holocaust is on anyone's agenda.

Iran want to use their weapons on their enemies closer to home. Not go to war with the largest nuclear armed superpower in the world and its allies.

-AC

Originally posted by ash007
indeed we DON'T want World War Three.

So shouldn't we invade Iran before they fully develop them? A full world wide war again? I think that's a bit exagurated..

But America attacking another country in the middle east would certainly only unite them more and would devide America from the rest of the world because (for instance) ignoring millions of protestors worldwide isn't exactly something wich the general opinion of the rest of the world would sympathise with.
I think it's better to let the middle east grow themselves and retreat all exploitations there. I personally think that nobody is actually planning on using weapons of mass destruction..
Only to protect themselves against other countries of course.. Still look at what caused the first world war.. If something does indeed happens then every countries paranoia would cause a major outbreak.

Originally posted by ash007
Would you give a gun to murderer.

Would you let a Pedophile work with children.

so why is america aloud nukes?

Take a guess.. The exact same reason why other countries are allowed.

well seeing as usa is the only country to have actually used them, don't you think its more of a risk, Instead of going to war on the premiss that someone else "might"?

I always maintained the belief that as the current world is, we're ironically safer if everyone has nukes. Every major power anyway.

If just one country had them, they could nuke and there'd be no fear of reprisals. Nobody is going to nuke now purely because then it'd result in getting nuked back, doing serious damage to the planets and each other in the process. Of course, the danger then is that some nutjob will get one and end up nuking someone. Which is looking possible.

-AC

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
so why is america aloud nukes?

Cause they won the race to construct them in WWII ?

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
well seeing as usa is the only country to have actually used them, don't you think its more of a risk, Instead of going to war on the premiss that someone else "might"? Yeah, well.. I was thinking more about size and might of the country.
Like Russia, nobody could ever (or even dare to) force America to hand out their weapons..

Iran however could be easily taken over if the war was planned like the one of Afghanistan. Sure it's hypocrite of America (government of course) if they were to go to war because of that sole idea but I could see Bush get away with it.

Originally posted by ash007
Would you give a gun to murderer.

Would you let a Pedophile work with children.

And


Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
well seeing as usa is the only country to have actually used them, don't you think its more of a risk, Instead of going to war on the premiss that someone else "might"?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
To wager a guess, I don't think a nuclear holocaust is on anyone's agenda.

Iran want to use their weapons on their enemies closer to home. Not go to war with the largest nuclear armed superpower in the world and its allies.

-AC

I always maintained the belief that as the current world is, we're ironically safer if everyone has nukes. Every major power anyway.

If just one country had them, they could nuke and there'd be no fear of reprisals. Nobody is going to nuke now purely because then it'd result in getting nuked back, doing serious damage to the planets and each other in the process. Of course, the danger then is that some nutjob will get one and end up nuking someone. Which is looking possible.

-AC

I agree with you on your first statement AC -altho I doubt anyone is that stupid as to use a nuclear weapon-

the second statement explains why I doubt the use of a nuclear weapon.

On the other hand if there are two countries whose leaders I see 'agreeing with a nuclear terrorist action' (cause I'm honestly convinced no country would admit to doing it) it would be either North Korea (but they have piped down since they have their nukes) or Iran at this moment.

Those may change in the future (Pakistan and India were going at it pretty hard a while ago so you never know who might 'allow' it)

Iran are getting a lot of attention and I think it's more than likely that this is all they want. I don't think they want the attention and subsequent annihilation that comes with using a nuke.

-AC

I think they should have the right to use it for energy and such, I personally think that nuclear weapons should be abandoned alltogether so I think no one should be allowed to make new ones, and the 8 major Nuclear powers should destroy theirs (but that won't happen that fast, if ever...)

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think they should have the right to use it for energy and such, I personally think that nuclear weapons should be abandoned alltogether so I think jno ones should be allowed to make new ones, and the 8 major Nuclear powers should destroy theirs (but that won't happen that fast, if ever...)

For this same reason, capitalism is always the logical conclusion of any political system.

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
so why is america aloud nukes?

Well... it's not like anyone can take them away, now is it.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
For this same reason, capitalism is always the logical conclusion of any political system.
I don't know what exactly you mean, but since, at least in my opinion, capitalism is the logical conclusiopn of huan life I guess you are right.

The advantages of a terrorist delivery system (as opposed to missiles) are 1) you don't see it coming; and 2) it is not immediately--and perhaps would never even be certainly--clear who the attacker is. This makes it much harder to justify who to nuke back. This is why pre-emption, IMO, can, in some instances, be justified. As I stated earlier, pre-emption is a lousy way to go, but ask yourself: is it that lousy that you'd rather take the chance that someone who hates you won't nuke you?

We are in a lose-lose situation. Our best bet is to choose the lesser of the evils to minimize loses.

Welcome to Earth, folks, where the dominant species lives its life more according to fiction than reality.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
For this same reason, capitalism is always the logical conclusion of any political system.

I appreciate and agree with the sentiment, but I don't think I'd use the word "conclusion." Sounds like no better system could eventually evolve...I don't know what that would be (if I did, I'd have a Nobel Prize for Economics on my mantle; hell, I'd have a mantle), but since capitalism is far from being a perfect system, one would think that, as humans and societies evolve, so would our way of managing our affairs.

Originally posted by Mindship
I appreciate and agree with the sentiment, but I don't think I'd use the word "conclusion." Sounds like no better system could eventually evolve...I don't know what that would be (if I did, I'd have a Nobel Prize for Economics on my mantle; hell, I'd have a mantle), but since capitalism is far from being a perfect system, one would think that, as humans and societies evolve, so would our way of managing our affairs.

I think it's the system that best reflects what humanity is, so until that changes, it will be the conclusion.

Obviously I don't suggest that other systems cannot develop, but when I say 'conclusion', I mean that I feel any future developments will eventually gravitate back towards the capitalist mode.

(I think we've gone off-topic though)

Iran is definitly trying to develop Nuclear weapons but this doesn't necessarily mean WWIII. Even WHEN (not if) they do then Israel is already suspected of having close to 200 Nukes, something Iran would be decades from, though It wouldn't take much to lay waste to tiny Israel. Israel could sure do a LOT of damage to Iran with those.

It's only WWIII if Russia, China, get involved. The US most certainly would, and probably Britian too.

The US currently has the largest functional nuclear arsenal on earth, estimated at around 10,000 to 12,000 warheads.

Russia has even more at around 20,000 but it's estimated that only about 3,000 are useable.

China has somewhere around 400-500.

Britian is next at fewer than 300.

Do the math. Iran nukes Israel and even if Israel can't respond the US most certainly will and I doubt Russia or China would do any more than post a diplomatic protest. They aren't going to war over Iran.

Question is, would countries being attacked with an A-bomb retaliate in the same fashion (if possible)?

I know that even if Belgium had that power I'd be aganist it (altho those views might change when that situation would present itself. Yet a big sized A-bomb on Belgium would result in the total destruction of what was once the nation-state Belgium)

Originally posted by Fire
Question is, would countries being attacked with an A-bomb retaliate in the same fashion (if possible)?

I know that even if Belgium had that power I'd be aganist it (altho those views might change when that situation would present itself. Yet a big sized A-bomb on Belgium would result in the total destruction of what was once the nation-state Belgium)

Well I believe Germany does have the ability to built A-Bombs, but we never did (I guess for obvious reasons....) but for some reason at least I am not that afraid that we could be a target to a military attack (or terrorist ...especially not at this strength)