|
Dirty bombs are basically useless as weapons though. All of the disadvantages of using regular nukes (you can bet that it will be tracked back to wherever the radioactive material came from), without any of the effectiveness. Edited by Mola_Ram at 09:06:51 15-07-2015 |
Iran moves the hour hand closer to midnight
•
Page 26
-
Mola_Ram 26,187 posts
Seen 25 minutes ago
Registered 9 years ago -
Riven326 57 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 8 years agoLetsGo wrote:
It's never been about fairness. My country, the United States, uses nuclear weapons as a deterrent. The trouble you run into with Iran getting their hands on such weapons is obvious: they would use them as weapons.
Does it scare me that Iran has got Nucular Power? Yes.
Does it scare me that Russia and North Korea have Nucular Weapons? Yes.
Look, i think we need to get rid of Nucular power altogether, but that's not going to happen.
At the end of the day, it's unfair to allow one country to have it but not others.
However, even so, I still advocate for a peaceful solution in this situation. The only other alternative is another war in the middle east that will no doubt include Great Britain and the other nations that make up the coalition forces.
The Republican presidential candidates in my country have made their positions quite clear: if this deal comes to pass, they will make every effort to undo it and push for war as hard as they can.
Edited by Riven326 at 01:55:49 28-08-2015
Edited by Riven326 at 01:56:31 28-08-2015 -
Mola_Ram 26,187 posts
Seen 25 minutes ago
Registered 9 years agoIran isn't more likely to use nuclear weapons than any other country with nuclear weapons. They're not stupid, and there's nothing in their history to indicate that they would start acting stupidly if armed with nukes (assuming that they do actually want to build them).
Overall, I am against Iran getting nuclear weapons, but only in the sense that I would rather have less weapons of that power in the world, not more. There's no need to resort to stupid and wrong fearmongering about Iran nuking Israel or whatever to make that point. -
Riven326 57 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 8 years agoMola_Ram wrote:
I know that a lot of what comes out of Iran is hot air. But that doesn't mean I'm okay with Iran having nuclear weapons. Even the United States is not okay with it and that's why Obama is pushing for this deal. He realizes the only alternative, due in large part to Iran's insistence on acquiring and developing nuclear power, is war.
Iran isn't more likely to use nuclear weapons than any other country with nuclear weapons. They're not stupid, and there's nothing in their history to indicate that they would start acting stupidly if armed with nukes (assuming that they do actually want to build them).
Overall, I am against Iran getting nuclear weapons, but only in the sense that I would rather have less weapons of that power in the world, not more. There's no need to resort to stupid and wrong fearmongering about Iran nuking Israel or whatever to make that point. -
Oh come on. "Even the United States is not okay with it"?
The US is an ally of Israel. They might not be except for the religious nutjobs in congress/senate who are either Jewish or the worst sort of Christian (you know, the ones that are actively trying to bring about the end of days, Revelations styleee).
Israel are already shit-scared of everyone in their immediate vicinity so it's hardly surprising that if a hostile nation, practically on their doorstep, starts developing the technology for nukes they will make damned sure their biggest ally steps in.
The US is not worried about their own security, they are worried about Israel. The most worrying thing is that if the Bible said something about (let's say) Iran nuking Tel Aviv, psychos like Huckabee would be all for it. -
Mola_Ram 26,187 posts
Seen 25 minutes ago
Registered 9 years agoAssuming that Iran is considering developing nuclear weapons*, I think an attack would make them more likely to want them, not less.
I think opposition to this settlement isn't coming from actual fear that Iran will still be able to develop (and use) nukes under the deal. The people behind the opposition aren't stupid. They see two possible Irans before them:
a) An Iran crushed by sanctions. Politically, economically, and militarily weak but with the capacity to make nukes
b) An Iran unencumbered by sanctions. No nukes but economically powerful enough to threaten Israel's hegemony over the region
They think a) is preferable, basically. They want to hijack the deal so that there's an excuse to continue the sanctions, and prevent Iran from becoming a major player in the region.
*And again, this is still just an assumption, borne not so much by evidence as by repeated assertions from Israel, going back more than 20 years, that Iran is months away from having nukes
Edited by Mola_Ram at 03:07:38 28-08-2015 -
Riven326 57 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 8 years agoTheRealBadabing wrote:
The prime minister of Israel and the President of the United States disagree on how to deal with Iran, which contradicts your idea of the US being just a puppet for Israel.
Oh come on. "Even the United States is not okay with it"?
The US is an ally of Israel. They might not be except for the religious nutjobs in congress/senate who are either Jewish or the worst sort of Christian (you know, the ones that are actively trying to bring about the end of days, Revelations styleee).
Israel are already shit-scared of everyone in their immediate vicinity so it's hardly surprising that if a hostile nation, practically on their doorstep, starts developing the technology for nukes they will make damned sure their biggest ally steps in.
The US is not worried about their own security, they are worried about Israel. The most worrying thing is that if the Bible said something about (let's say) Iran nuking Tel Aviv, psychos like Huckabee would be all for it.
Iran has already declared that they will wipe Israel off the map given the chance. Most of the rhetoric is little more than hot air, but one cannot take the chance and give them free leave to develop nuclear weapons. They are a theocratic society, and thus, there is always a chance that they will have the kind of person in charge who is more willing to take the plunge.
Edited by Riven326 at 03:06:59 28-08-2015 -
Mola_Ram 26,187 posts
Seen 25 minutes ago
Registered 9 years agoOh, the person in charge? You mean the Supreme Leader who has final say on all decisions, and who has declared a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons on numerous occasions? You mean that person in charge?
Or do you mean Ahmadinejad, who isn't in power anymore (and was really just a figurehead even then)? The one who was such an idiot that even the clerics in his country were telling him to cut it out with the crazy talk?
Forget rhetoric and think about action. The only war that Iran has been involved with in the past couple of decades was with (notably non-theocratic) Iraq, and that was a war that *Iraq started*. So where are we getting this notion that Iran, of all countries, is going to bring about a nuclear apocalypse?
Again to be clear, there are legitimate reasons to not want Iran (or any nation) to develop more weapons capable of destroying entire cities. There are legitimate arguments to be made there.
But exaggerating the threat, and making shit up about how irrational the Iranian leadership is when significant evidence points to the contrary, does not help those arguments. If anything it makes them weaker, on account of the whole "boy who cried wolf" effect.
Edited by Mola_Ram at 04:08:30 28-08-2015 -
Mola_Ram 26,187 posts
Seen 25 minutes ago
Registered 9 years agoOh yes, it's totally different this time around. Sure, America - the other non-theocratic nuclear power that is such a bastion of rational thought - managed to cock up an invasion of Iraq, chasing after weapons that turned out to be imaginary. But that won't happen again! You can trust them this time! -
Riven326 57 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 8 years agoMola_Ram wrote:
I didn't say Iran was going to bring about a nuclear apocalypse. All I said was that the leadership of the country has made very serious statements before that pointed to war. I also said it was little more than hot air.
Oh, the person in charge? You mean the Supreme Leader who has final say on all decisions, and who has declared a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons on numerous occasions? You mean that person in charge?
Or do you mean Ahmadinejad, who isn't in power anymore (and was really just a figurehead even then)? The one who was such an idiot that even the clerics in his country were telling him to cut it out with the crazy talk?
Forget rhetoric and think about action. The only war that Iran has been involved with in the past couple of decades was with (notably non-theocratic) Iraq, and that was a war that *Iraq started*. So where are we getting this notion that Iran, of all countries, is going to bring about a nuclear apocalypse?
Again to be clear, there are legitimate reasons to not want Iran (or any nation) to develop more weapons capable of destroying entire cities. There are legitimate arguments to be made there.
But exaggerating the threat, and making shit up about how irrational the Iranian leadership is when significant evidence points to the contrary, does not help those arguments. If anything it makes them weaker, on account of the whole "boy who cried wolf" effect.
I don't believe one can fully trust theocratic nations to keep their word. However, I do believe we should give them a chance (while keeping a close eye on them) and if they blow it and decide to start making nuclear weapons, we'll take care of it then.
Edited by Riven326 at 01:10:19 29-08-2015 -
Riven326 wrote:
*cough cough*
It's never been about fairness. My country, the United States, uses nuclear weapons as a deterrent. The trouble you run into with Iran getting their hands on such weapons is obvious: they would use them as weapons.
Nuclear weapons used as weapons by the US: 2
Nuclear weapons used as weapons by anyone else: 0
Edited by DrStrangelove at 18:07:18 28-08-2015 -
twelveways 7,131 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 15 years ago@DrStrangelove
They needed to let the world know they had them, you of all usernames should know that. -
I had nothing to do with it!
fingers crossed behind back -
I really hope you two aren't fighting in the War Room. -
Seriously though, if they just wanted to let the world know they had them, they could have dropped them on military targets, not cities. They could have spread terror by showing the destruction they were capable of, but they chose to spread terror by annihilating civilians.
Edited by DrStrangelove at 18:14:20 28-08-2015 -
Juz wrote:
I'd never fight in the war room! It's against the law!
I really hope you two aren't fighting in the War Room. -
What time is it? -
@Riven326 America certainly loves her wars, it would be fair to say that since the end of World War 2 America has been pretty much in a state of constant warfare, be that boots on the ground or some sort of proxy war in some far flung corner of the Earth? -
Riven326 57 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 8 years ago@reggy72 The American people don't love war. We have always been isolationists who believe other countries should deal with their own business. But sometimes war is unavoidable, even more so when you have the largest military in the world.
Edited by Riven326 at 01:04:19 29-08-2015 -
Riven326 57 posts
Seen 3 years ago
Registered 8 years agoDrStrangelove wrote:
Yeah, we dropped atom bombs on Japan because they were at war with us and would not surrender. It's an entirely different situation.
Riven326 wrote:
*cough cough*
It's never been about fairness. My country, the United States, uses nuclear weapons as a deterrent. The trouble you run into with Iran getting their hands on such weapons is obvious: they would use them as weapons.
Nuclear weapons used as weapons by the US: 2
Nuclear weapons used as weapons by anyone else: 0 -
RyanDS 14,073 posts
Seen 22 hours ago
Registered 13 years agoRiven326 wrote:
You could have dropped a bomb on the outskirts of Tokyo as a show of strength, instead you went straight to city centre.
DrStrangelove wrote:
Yeah, we dropped atom bombs on Japan because they were at war with us and would not surrender. It's an entirely different situation.
Riven326 wrote:
*cough cough*
It's never been about fairness. My country, the United States, uses nuclear weapons as a deterrent. The trouble you run into with Iran getting their hands on such weapons is obvious: they would use them as weapons.
Nuclear weapons used as weapons by the US: 2
Nuclear weapons used as weapons by anyone else: 0
Anyway that is a debatable comment but this is comedy gold:
"The American people don't love war. We have always been isolationists who believe other countries should deal with their own business. But sometimes war is unavoidable, even more so when you have the largest military in the world."
Since Cuba under Spanish rule the USA has fucking loved it's wars. Which is the reason it has the biggest army. They have it because they want to use it. -
CosmicFuzz 32,632 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 15 years agoWhat about if Iran gets into a war with someone and they won't surrender. -
Mola_Ram 26,187 posts
Seen 25 minutes ago
Registered 9 years agoPakistan has been at war (well, border skirmishes) with India for a long time now. Both of them have nukes, neither has surrendered, and no nukes have been fired. And Pakistan at least is a way more volatile country than Iran.
Edited by Mola_Ram at 02:02:18 29-08-2015 -
Khanivor 44,800 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 20 years agoThat may have something to do with realizing that nuking your next door neighbor might not be a good long term health plan. -
Mola_Ram 26,187 posts
Seen 25 minutes ago
Registered 9 years agoWell, nuking Israel isn't exactly a good long term health plan either, but we're all too willing to talk about Iran as if they're uniquely irrational in this regard. -
Riven326 wrote:
As a fellow American...
@reggy72 The American people don't love war. We have always been isolationists who believe other countries should deal with their own business. But sometimes war is unavoidable, even more so when you have the largest military in the world.
How's the Gilded age going? Because that way of thinking went out of style neatly a century ago.
edit: loldecade
Edited by Barrel_Trollz at 06:26:05 29-08-2015
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
