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

Now, I understand that Iran has threatened Israel and wants to wipe them off the map, but if Iran got the bomb I don't know how quick they would be to use it since Israel has nukes as well.

I think that their push for nuclear technology and their defiance of the West is mostly to prove that they are a powerful nation and they have every right to nuclear power, just as much right as the West has.

The Iranians, from what I've heard, are a very proud people, and for the (more powerful?) Western powers to say they can't have nuclear power must be insulting to them.

How big is the threat of a nuclear Iran, honestly? Is it worth fighting a war against them to stop their nuclear ambitions? Do they have a legitimate right to nuclear energy as a sovereign nation?

Answering the three questions at the end of your post:

1.) Pretty big. Enough that they are on record saying that they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Next step:get nukes. Seems clear cut to me.
Also, they fund and supply insurgents in Iraq and Hezzbolah terrorists. Nukes for them are a no-no.


2.)Yes. Absolutely.

3.)Nope.



Easy, huh?

Q.How big is the threat of a nuclear Iran, honestly?

A.Huge as they said Israeli's deserve to die and should go back to where they came form (Which in my opinion was the purpose of forming Israel)

Q.Is it worth fighting a war against them to stop their nuclear ambitions?

A.Yes its worth fighting anyone to stop them killing innocents(which they will use the bomb for)

Q.Do they have a legitimate right to nuclear energy as a sovereign nation?

A.No as they will just use it to convert Uranium to Plutonium

What's so bad about living with a nuclear Iran?

Not living.

Ye but heres the thing

War Plan for Dummies

Iran Fires Nukes at Israel

Israel Fires back and calls Its allies

The U.S and Great Britain fire at Iran

Iran calls its Allies

Its Allies shoot at Great Britain and U.S.A

We all die

See what i mean, Nuclear war always follows the systems of M.A.D(Mutually assured destruction)

Originally posted by Help
Ye but heres the thing

War Plan for Dummies

Iran Fires Nukes at Israel

Israel Fires back and calls Its allies

The U.S and Great Britain fire at Iran

Iran calls its allies

Its Allies shoot at Great Britain and U.S.A

We all die

and who might they be? Russia? China? I highly doubt they would back Iran if they attacked Israel.

Originally posted by Help
See what i mean, Nuclear war always follows the systems of M.A.D(Mutually assured destruction)

I would think that that would be deterrent enough to keep Iran at bay. I might be wrong.

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
and who might they be? Russia? China? I highly doubt they would back Iran if they attacked Israel.
Ye but in this scenario Russia's been contaminated with radioactive material by the attacks on Iran whats it got to lose.

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
I would think that that would be deterrent enough to keep Iran at bay. I might be wrong.
Iran would be muslim martyr's in their own eye's.You get rewards for that in heaven.

Originally posted by Help
Ye but in this scenario Russia's been contaminated with radioactive material by the attacks on Iran whats it got to lose.

Yeah, that could be bad news...



Originally posted by Help
Iran would be muslim martyr's in their own eye's.You get rewards for that in heaven.

What a waste.

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
Now, I understand that Iran has threatened Israel and wants to wipe them off the map, but if Iran got the bomb I don't know how quick they would be to use it since Israel has nukes as well.

I think that their push for nuclear technology and their defiance of the West is mostly to prove that they are a powerful nation and they have every right to nuclear power, just as much right as the West has.

The Iranians, from what I've heard, are a very proud people, and for the (more powerful?) Western powers to say they can't have nuclear power must be insulting to them.

How big is the threat of a nuclear Iran, honestly? Is it worth fighting a war against them to stop their nuclear ambitions? Do they have a legitimate right to nuclear energy as a sovereign nation?

Everything.

They're putting all their money in the wrong place. Poor P.O.S. countries should not have nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by Help
But when Iran start fuelling Israel gets information from sleeper agents (Israel is liked amongst the West so it would be warned if Iran was fuelling by most Western countires).This information encourages Israel to starty fuelling its missiles, When Iran fires they will take time to reach Israel.At about a 1/4 of the way on Irans missiles journey Israel will fire along with most of the West.This could casue fallout headed to Russia who with nothing to lose fire at the West. No-one survives.

That is a bad scenario; that is why the US will bomb then into the stone age long before they ever get the bomb.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is a bad scenario; that is why the US will bomb them into the stone age long before they ever get the bomb.




See? End of discussion.

They don't get it, and we won't let 'em.


Shaky wins the thread!

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
Now, I understand that Iran has threatened Israel and wants to wipe them off the map, but if Iran got the bomb I don't know how quick they would be to use it since Israel has nukes as well.

I think that their push for nuclear technology and their defiance of the West is mostly to prove that they are a powerful nation and they have every right to nuclear power, just as much right as the West has.

The Iranians, from what I've heard, are a very proud people, and for the (more powerful?) Western powers to say they can't have nuclear power must be insulting to them.

How big is the threat of a nuclear Iran, honestly? Is it worth fighting a war against them to stop their nuclear ambitions? Do they have a legitimate right to nuclear energy as a sovereign nation?

Not the threat that Iran will start launching nukes out of Tehran (even considering their open threats to Israel and the West) as much as who they'll sell their nuclear material too and/or who'll they use as a proxy to set off a nuke.

Seriouly now, Iran is a Theocracy, one less religion riddled nation without nukes is a good thing.

Answering the three questions at the end of your post:

1. Pretty minimal

2. Nah

3. Sure

Originally posted by Bardock42
Answering the three questions at the end of your post:

1.blah-blah-blah
2. blah-blah-blah
3. poop

Originally posted by sithsaber408


HEY. I didn't do that to your answers either...

Originally posted by Bardock42
HEY. I didn't do that to your answers either...

Ya, sithsaber408 that wasn't funny.



Now that's funny.

Bunch of ****ing comic degenerates.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, sithsaber408 that wasn't funny.





Neither is the idea that Iran is welcome to nukes, is not a threat, and that we should avoid conflict with them rather than confronting them.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Neither is the idea that Iran is welcome to nukes, is not a threat, and that we should avoid conflict with them rather than confronting them.

Give me back my soap box.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Neither is the idea that Iran is welcome to nukes, is not a threat, and that we should avoid conflict with them rather than confronting them. That was serious though.

I don't think Iran would be much of a thread for us (Germany...actually also the US)

We shouldn't just randomly bomb a country because we fear they might randomly bomb a country...not seeing the hypocrisy? No? Only one here?


And Iran should have every ****ing right to use nuclear energy by peaceful means.

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
Now, I understand that Iran has threatened Israel and wants to wipe them off the map, but if Iran got the bomb I don't know how quick they would be to use it since Israel has nukes as well.

I think that their push for nuclear technology and their defiance of the West is mostly to prove that they are a powerful nation and they have every right to nuclear power, just as much right as the West has.

The Iranians, from what I've heard, are a very proud people, and for the (more powerful?) Western powers to say they can't have nuclear power must be insulting to them.

How big is the threat of a nuclear Iran, honestly? Is it worth fighting a war against them to stop their nuclear ambitions? Do they have a legitimate right to nuclear energy as a sovereign nation? They're just trying to protect their fellow Muslim the way I see it, but we should take precautions.

Originally posted by lord xyz
They're just trying to protect their fellow Muslim the way I see it, but we should take precautions.

That's bull, they're trying to 'protect their fellow Muslims', they just hate Jews and wish death on them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That was serious though.

I don't think Iran would be much of a thread for us (Germany...actually also the US)

We shouldn't just randomly bomb a country because we fear they might randomly bomb a country...not seeing the hypocrisy? No? Only one here?


And Iran should have every ****ing right to use nuclear energy by peaceful means. Originally posted by lord xyz
They're just trying to protect their fellow Muslim the way I see it, but we should take precautions.

You guys are what's wrong with the European approach.


Only certain countries get nukes. Sorry, that's the way it is. Generally they are allies of the U.S., and not a Muslim-led theocracy bent on exterminating the Zionists.


Even if Iran didn't start a nuclear war with Israel (which many believe that they would) they would still supply nuke technology to any terrorist who would desire to use it against us or our interests.

(just as they are doing now supplying insurgents in Iraq and supplying and funding Hezzbolah terrorists.)

That is an uncaceptable option (Iran supplying terrorists with nukes) and won't be allowed to happen.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Even if Iran didn't start a nuclear war with Israel (which many believe that they would) they would still supply nuke technology to any terrorist who would desire to use it against us or our interests.


Yep

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You guys are what's wrong with the European approach.


Only certain countries get nukes. Sorry, that's the way it is. Generally they are allies of the U.S., and not a Muslim-led theocracy bent on exterminating the Zionists.


Even if Iran didn't start a nuclear war with Israel (which many believe that they would) they would still supply nuke technology to any terrorist who would desire to use it against us or our interests.

(just as they are doing now supplying insurgents in Iraq and supplying and funding Hezzbolah terrorists.)

That is an uncaceptable option (Iran supplying terrorists with nukes) and won't be allowed to happen.

Oh, I am not saying that it will go my way. And actually I'd rather have it watched whether they have nukes. Just saying that if they had the threat would still be small I assume. Also saying that they should have nuclear energy.

If the US wants to bomb the shit out of them, go ahead...though you are the ****ers that actually kill innocent people...should just remember that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That was serious though.

I don't think Iran would be much of a thread for us (Germany...actually also the US)

We shouldn't just randomly bomb a country because we fear they might randomly bomb a country...not seeing the hypocrisy? No? Only one here?


And Iran should have every ****ing right to use nuclear energy by peaceful means.

I agree.

and all this opposition seems to be based on the assumption that Iran is making nuclear weapons. We don't know that they are doing that, and another preemptive (preventive?) war would not be a good thing (who wants another Iraq?)

Jesus Christ, I said "thread", didn't I?


****!!

You know, the big issue of Iran having nuclear weapons-grade technology is totally moot. In this day and age there is no such thing as nuclear secrets. It isn't 1952 anymore.

Speaking from a nuclear stand point, Iran isn't much of a threat to the US. From a national security stand point they are a much bigger threat. They effect global politics around the world. And this idea that we can go up the list of countries that don't like us and bully and grandstand won't work anymore. Like I said, it isn't 1952 anymore.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You know, the big issue of Iran having nuclear weapons-grade technology is totally moot. In this day and age there is no such thing as nuclear secrets. It isn't 1952 anymore.

Speaking from a nuclear stand point, Iran isn't much of a threat to the US. From a national security stand point they are a much bigger threat. They effect global politics around the world. And this idea that we can go up the list of countries that don't like us and bully and grandstand won't work anymore. Like I said, it isn't 1952 anymore.

Would Iran launch a nuke at the U.S. from their soil even if someone like the Russians or Chinese sold them the rocket/propulsion technology? Extremely doubtful.

Would Iran sell/give nuclear technology to a terrorist organization that would/could detonate it in down town San Francisco, Tel Aviv or Paris? Very Plausible

Originally posted by Robtard
Would Iran launch a nuke at the U.S. from their soil even if someone like the Russians or Chinese sold them the rocket/propulsion technology? Extremely doubtful.

Would Iran sell/give nuclear technology to a terrorist organization that would/could detonate it in down town San Francisco, Tel Aviv or Paris? Very Plausible

But that's kind of missing my point. The technology is out there. It's all over the black market. Dozens and dozens of countries have the technology. That's the result of the end of the cold war. The threat moved from a two country dispute to a global threat. What I'm saying is that stopping Iran from getting the technology is a moot point. It's there for the taking or developing. That's why it comes down to a terror prevention campaign. And you don't do that by invading a country and further destabilizing the region.

This war on terror is not a war that will be won on a battle field with two armies fighting an open conflict. Terrorism can be fought more effectively with proper security and concentrated police effort, not by rolling into a soverign nation in a tank. This is a job for the CIA, FBI and Homeland security, not the US army.

Who needs the Army?

The U.S. Air Force can bomb the sh!t out of them from a good distance.

IF (and its a a big "if" they continue to pursue nukes and won't follow U.N. resolutions and such.

When he said US army, he was obviously alluding to the military in general.

Not to mention an Air Force could never win a full-scale war on its own.

I feel any nuclear country is a threat, one is no better than the other. There all capable of world annihilation America makes Iran look bad in our eyes, and Iran makes America look bad in there people eyes. Bottom line no one should have them. How can you banned another nation from having them when you do? Not to mention Israel have them as well, but that don't seem to be a problem. Now how hypocritical is that?blowup

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Who needs the Army?

The U.S. Air Force can bomb the sh!t out of them from a good distance.

IF (and its a a big "if" they continue to pursue nukes and won't follow U.N. resolutions and such.

How is that any better than them dropping a dirty bomb into a fed-ex envelope and mailing to NYC?

What you're really addressing, in a very deep down kind of way, is that you don't like them because they're different. And I'm not even saying they're different in a good way. But do you really want to be a citizen of a country that goes around "spreading freedom" with the buisness end of a nuclear warhead? I can assure you the Iranians are playing with fire when they talk about nuclear weapons and using them against the US. I can also assure you that they know that as well. They might have a few bombs, but we invented the damn things. We've got more than enough to wipe them off the face of the Earth. But what happens after that? Unlike the cold war, this isn't mutually assured destruction we're talking about. Yes, it would be a catastrophe for the city or population the bomb was used against. But the Iranians don't want to suffer that kind of escalated backlash. So it won't happen that way.

So after we nuke Iran and wipe them out, what next? Who have we just pissed off? Another nuclear power? Should they hit us back, or should we just go ahead and nuke them too? And after that?

You really need to find a way to wrap you head around the idea that our actions as a nation have consequences. This isn't the wild west and we aren't the town sheriff...no matter how many village people outfits GW wears for the cameras.


Originally posted by RedAlertv2
When he said US army, he was obviously alluding to the military in general.

I'm pretty sure he understood that. But thank you for pointing it out.

If the Iranians ever gave a nuke to terrorists, who then used it on the US, we would be able to trace it right back to Iran.

Point being, even if they have/create a nuke, Iran isnt take any steps to use it. They may not like us, but they arent idiots.

Let me put it like this.

Bomb the f*ck out of 'em. America may have an incompetent 'tard at the reins but at least he isn't blinded enough by hatred to threaten to WIPE another country off of the map.

Why is everyone saying that Iran would sellthe technology. As soon as they're allowed to get their hands on enough Uranium-235 (which can be detonmated by slamming two chunks of it together) they'll be able to make the ulimate suicide bomber

Originally posted by Help
Why is everyone saying that Iran would sellthe technology. As soon as they're allowed to get their hands on enough Uranium-235 (which can be detonmated by slamming two chunks of it together) they'll be able to make the ulimate suicide bomber

One more reason not to let them pursue it.

Added to a potential nuclear war with its neighbor, and the high possibility of providing nuclear arms to terrorist groups....


It becomes quite plain that a nuclear Iran is out of the question.

Iran has repeatedly stated that they wish to construct power plants with the material. Whether they'll actually use the material for bombs or electricity is debatable, but I don't see any worry about them having little kiloton fission bombs when we've gotten so good at megaton-yield bomb design that we can build a bomb the size of your fist that can destroy a city.

note: I'm not exagerrating the bomb size either, that was a statement from my uncle who works at Sandia Labs and was part of their nuclear weapons division.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Iran has repeatedly stated that they wish to construct power plants with the material.

And they've repeatedly stated that they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

What's your point?Originally posted by AngryManatee
I don't see any worry about them having little kiloton fission bombs when we've gotten so good at megaton-yield bomb design that we can build a bomb the size of your fist that can destroy a city.

note: I'm not exagerrating the bomb size either, that was a statement from my uncle who works at Sandia Labs and was part of their nuclear weapons division.

The worry is not about the size or stength of bomb that they would be capable of producing, but what the effect of said bomb in the trunk of a car blown up in Times Square would be.

Our ability to produce a stronger and more compact bomb will mean nothing if the Iranians give the one that they make to some free-lance terrorist.

Originally posted by Help
Why is everyone saying that Iran would sellthe technology. As soon as they're allowed to get their hands on enough Uranium-235 (which can be detonmated by slamming two chunks of it together) they'll be able to make the ulimate suicide bomber

You wouldn't be able to make a powerful nuclear device for a person to carry if you use an implosion design like that. You need the equal power of an artillery piece to accelerate the material in order to start a huge series of reactions like that.

Fat Boy, the bomb dropped on nagasaki, was an implosion design , and its yield was 41 kilotons. That's from a 7.5 ft tall bomb weighing 10,000 lbs. It's much more cost effective for them to just strap normal explosives to themselves rather than small fission devices.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
And they've repeatedly stated that they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

What's your point?

The worry is not about the size or stength of bomb that they would be capable of producing, but what the effect of said bomb in the trunk of a car blown up in Times Square would be.

Our ability to produce a stronger and more compact bomb will mean nothing if the Iranians give the one that they make to some free-lance terrorist.

Saudi Arabia, our "allies," have actually attempted, twice I might add, to wipe Israel off the map, not merely talk about it. It's not just Iran that wants them gone.

If they were to make a bomb of any sizeable yield, it would have to be towed by a truck or hauled in an 18-wheeler. It wouldn't be very incospicuous, mainly due to the fact that you can't go offroad across the border with that kind of load, and the heat and radiation sigs given off by it.

Edit: secretly transporting a simple fission device is not an easy thing to do.

Heres another viewpoint.

We live in a democracy that while possibly corrupt , entitles a large portion of our leaders power upon the publics technical choice. Also while our leaders may be idiots they employ Aids who our a lot more level headed and clear minded.

Iran and it's various outlying states/countries on the other hand ISN'T a democracy. It's either a dictatorship or it a (very) crooked attempt at democracy filled with serious religious issues all smack bang in the middle ; and these things alone flip flop every couple of months/years.

Giving ANY of them nuclear capability (power or otherwise) Is like giving a jar full of Nitro glycerin to a guy and telling him to shake it. There's a small chance he wotn blow up , but it's Veeeeeeeeeeeeeery small chance.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
And they've repeatedly stated that they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

So? What does that have to do with us?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So? What does that have to do with us?

Israel is the 51st state.

I find it funny how we complain about Iran WANTING to wipe Israel of the earth when our ally Saudi Arabia has ATTEMPTED to do so twice in major conflict since after WWII

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Israel is the 51st state.

And that's my point. If they can't exist in this world without another country, or several countries, proping them up; then the country doesn't deserve to exist.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
So? What does that have to do with us?

Allies... They are.

If China were to attack the U.K., the U.S. would jump in, why? Allies.

Plus they're God's people and the Bible says that any nation that stands against them will fall.


I meant that half-seriously, but deep down most of our American leaders believe this in one form or another, or they certainly know that the American populace believes it.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Plus they're God's people and the Bible says that any nation that stands against them will fall.


I meant that half-seriously, but deep down most of our American leaders believe this in one form or another, or they certainly know that the American populace believes it.

So, are you saying that we are protecting Israel for zealous religious reasons? I find that funny because they wish to destroy Israel because of zealous religious reasons.

Originally posted by Robtard
Allies... They are.

If China were to attack the U.K., the U.S. would jump in, why? Allies.

If the relationship between the two were simply as allies, that might be valid. But that doesn't really address my point.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, are you saying that we are protecting Israel for zealous religious reasons? I find that funny because they wish to destroy Israel because of zealous religious reasons.


You can't really say it any better than that.

Originally posted by grey fox
America may have an incompetent 'tard at the reins but at least he isn't blinded enough by hatred to threaten to WIPE another country off of the map. One word: Iraq.

Originally posted by lord xyz
One word: Iraq.

Okay... What does Iraq have to do with his statement?

Iran isn't even the real threat here

The threat is Iran developing nukes and selling them to terrorists, and the terrorists setting off nukes in Israel, the US, the UK, ect..

And we don't have Jack Bauer to save us, unlike the 24 universe

Theres something odd about this whole Iran middle east thing. Maybe its all religion who knows. so far this is whats been happening.

Armageddadinejad: We will not back down.
Al-Sadist: We will not back down.
Cheney: We will not back down.
Hamas: We will not back down.
Saudi Royal Family: We will not back down.
Hezbollah: We will not back down.
Israel: We will not back down.
EU: We'll back down.
Russia: We don't like this.
China: We will Crush you all.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

I wonder where this is going?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Answering the three questions at the end of your post:

1.) Pretty big. Enough that they are on record saying that they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Next step:get nukes. Seems clear cut to me.

I doubt it. If only rhetoric and grandstanding had a history of actual follow through. Iran is far from a nice place, but its leaders are not crazy maniacs who would invite certain world retaliation by "getting nukes and then vaping Israel." If I am not mistaken, such rhetoric occasionally cropped up back in the cold war era, which Communists going on about wiping out the scourge of Capitalism. And they had Nukes. Yet Capitalism is still here, and most Communism is gone, in part due to the cost of trying to maintain nuclear arsenals. And Iran is no Soviet Union.

And hell, N. Korea has actually got the the stage of detonating a nuclear device - if anything it shows the massive, massive gap between "having weapon grade material" and the actual ability to use it effectively as a weapon. Iran has a long way to go before they get quality nuclear weapons (considering they are still at the "we are only developing this for power purposes"

Likewise the area occupied by Israel is of religious significance to Islam as a whole - I question how willing apparently religious people would be to unleash relatively uncontrollable destructive forces upon such land.



Far more possible - but remember. Iraq is fairly close to Iranian borders. I question how great the desire will be for Iran to risk having dirty bombs exploding on its doorstep. And remember - Iran has aspirations for Iraq, or so we are told. It is a big step going from conventional weapons and bombs in the hands of insurgents in order for them to create chaos and weaken Coalition/Iraqi control to giving them something that will have pretty profound and long lasting effects. And are you saying you still see the insurgency going by the time Iran has enough weapons grade material (in theory, since we don't have any proof they are making it beyond "this is Iran - of course they are trying to build nukes" to be handing it out like candy to Iraqi rebels? Hmmm - if that is the case it would seem Bush's troop surge will have to have failed in the near future.

And what about Russia - after all - haven't they actually admitted in the past they have lost nuclear material? Isn't their security lax? Isn't there a recognised large criminal sector that has links to arms dealing? To be honest it seems to me the threat of nuclear material falling into the hands of terrorists is far more dangerous from existing sources in Russia then some unknown future with a nuclear Iran becoming the nuclear sugar daddy for terrorists the world over.



So... when did Iran gain Allies capable of shooting at the US and Great Britain? Syria, is there something you aren't telling us?

And how many Nukes are you figuring Iran into actually possessing here? It is still years (I'd say at least five, but more officials sources seem to indicate longer) before Iran would be anywhere near having a reliable, conventional nuclear weapon anywhere near the quality of those held by other nations. And then - how many Nukes can Iran actually support?



Well - that is just odd. "In this scenario" - is the world meant to base its policy on this scenario where for some strange reason Russia is contaminated by attacks on Iran and it says "hey, while attacking Iran they contaminated us! Let's assure our destruction by spraying off nukes willy nilly, in the process killing everyone else as well!"

At which point the reanimated corpse of Stalin comes in and says "That is a great plan comrade! It is a good thing we have let our nuclear stockpile deteriorate so significantly!"



It is a shame not all Muslims think like that. Not most in fact.



I think you have been reading to much Cold War fiction.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That was serious though.

I don't think Iran would be much of a thread for us (Germany...actually also the US)

We shouldn't just randomly bomb a country because we fear they might randomly bomb a country...not seeing the hypocrisy? No? Only one here?

And Iran should have every ****ing right to use nuclear energy by peaceful means.

I agree with that. As far as I am concerned "preemptive war" has been shown pretty much for what it is over the last couple of years.

Funny, back around the beginning of Iraq that was a really popular phrase "preemptive strikes" amongst the pro-war lobby. It seems to have mostly died out now though.