Iran and Nuclear Bombs

Discussion in 'The Political/Current Events Coffee House' started by Shisno, Jun 13, 2012.

  1. Shisno Doesn't know who did this

    Member Since:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Message Count:
    2,641
    Likes Received:
    739
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    NKVD Underground
    So, seeing as there are currently no threads talking discussing this, I decided to make one about Iran, and its nuclear program. Now you here Republicans every day talking about, "Herp derp, Iran and uranium, therefore, bombs". And what they say could happen, I won't deny it, with Iran making a nuclear missile/bomb and then dropping said missile/bomb. And how it is oh so bad, and we must attack Iran, because they will obviously attack the West. Well I am tired of listening to this BS.
    First of all, we have no evidence what so ever to prove that Iran is actually going to use uranium for military purposes. There is the option of using it for scientific purposes, or medical purposes, or for it to just be there. And even if they are attempting to make a nuclear weapon, does that really mean we should go to war with them? Like I said, this is all mere suspicion. No concrete evidence has been shown to prove that the Iranians are making a nuclear bomb. It reminds me of this place we once went to war with. You may have heard of it. It was called Iraq. We had suspicions that they were making weapons of mass destruction there. And were they? No, they weren't.
    Secondly, if we attack Iran for making a nuclear weapon, then doesn't that mean we should attack Pakistan? Or North Korea? Or China? Or Russia? Or tens of other countries that don't share the same views as us, that have nuclear weapons. And even if they have a nuclear weapon, it still doesn't mean we should invade. The Soviet Union had nuclear weapons when we were in a cold war throughout the 50's, 60's, 70's and early 80's. But that didn't mean we went to war. And we should also look at the reasons for Iran getting a nuclear weapon as well. It is surrounded by countries like India, Pakistan, China and Israel. All of them have nuclear weapons. And Iran is the one without nuclear weapons. I am not surprised they would want them.
    Finally, and most importantly, just because they have nuclear weapons, does not mean they are going to launch one. Iran has a sane leader. He wouldn't risk his country being blown to bits just to launch one nuclear missile. That is retarded. So yeah, discuss.
    ComradeQueso and Anwrise888 like this.
  2. Kali The World's Best Communist

    Member Since:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Message Count:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NPT.
    That doesn't make sense. There aren't "tens of countries" that even have nuclear weapons. There are 5 recognized NWS (US, UK, France, Russia, China), one openly aspirant nuclear power (DPRK), and one likely nuclear power (Israel). Additionally, Pakistan and India are known possessors of nuclear weapons, but have not signed off on the NPT.

    Iran has signed the NPT, which means they're legally barred from possessing nuclear weapons. On top of that, "nuclear fairness" is a really, really fucking stupid doctrine. Even if they weren't legally prohibited from obtaining nuclear arms, it's in both the sovereign interest of the United States, as well as the global community, to prevent them from acquiring them.
    Stop apologizing on Iran's behalf. Iran is the bad guy. Even if you don't like US policy or UN policy regarding Iran, it's an unabashedly terrible place to live. It's a theocracy filled to the brim with religious fanatics, and it repeatedly defies international law. Don't take your anger out on the status quo by defending tyrants and madmen.
    While a nuclear launch is certainly a major negative that needs to be considered, you're right about this. Even if they got one, Iran probably wouldn't use it. However, the leverage they get from being a nuclear power enables them to be a hell of a lot more aggressive. Not only will they become a larger international threat, their neighbors (Saudia Arabia in particular) will look to acquire nuclear arms themselves. Nonproliferation is around for a reason, and even with the backing of the international community, it's a fragile goal.
    That's debatable.
    He has pilfered the national industries of his country and seized the personal assets of the impoverished, all while his people suffer under heavy international sanctions. A-jad's concern for the nation of Iran is minimal, if it's even extant.
  3. DukeofAwesome Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,272
    Likes Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    114
    Location:
    New Jersey USA
    The question was though, should we invade them? Like Shisno said, we just have suspicions that they're going for a nuclear weapon right now. They could be doing anything with their uranium. Invading Iran would be similar to invading Iraq except much worse.

    Why do you think that? I haven't heard much debate on either side to form an opinion about it but the basics of it seem to be sound.
  4. Chives Newest Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,270
    Likes Received:
    1,153
    Trophy Points:
    333
    Location:
    Indiana
    A doctrine that says because one nation has nukes, other nations have the right and obligation to have their own?
    How could you possibly argue that this is a two sided argument?
  5. Kali The World's Best Communist

    Member Since:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Message Count:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Invading Iran isn't necessary. We have been sabotaging their efforts, with the help of Israel, at every turn. Clandestine regime change, or even an overt regime change, are within the scope of possibility. Failing that, we need only rely on Israel and Saudi Arabia to destroy Iranian nuclear sites.
    Non-proliferation and disarmament are the only sane choices. A world where any country could possess nuclear weapons is entirely undesirable. Furthermore, the international status quo is largely perpetuated because of the current state of nuclear politics.
    slydessertfox and Spartacus like this.
  6. Demondaze Xenos Scum

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,456
    Likes Received:
    925
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    TEXASLOL
    It wouldn't be his call anyways. Not that I'm disagreeing mind you, simply pointing out that the title "President" doesn't hold so much authority as it does here in the west.
  7. DukeofAwesome Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,272
    Likes Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    114
    Location:
    New Jersey USA
    That's true I suppose, although if Israel or Saudi Arabia bomb Iranian facilities, how would they react? Not well I'd wager.

    I agree that the entire world not having nuclear weapons would be the best option but how realistic is that? Israel most likely has a nuclear weapon. Israel isn't likely to get rid of it when they're surrounded by countries that don't like them.
  8. Kali The World's Best Communist

    Member Since:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Message Count:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The key and critical feature of A-jad's presidency has been the separation (and empowerment) of the presidency from the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah commands the Iranian people, but Ahmadinejad has considerably greater influence on the mechanisms of government, especially concerning foreign policy.
    Unlike you folk, I don't care about some ideal nuclear-free world. It's unlikely, yes. But even the status quo is unquestionably better than one that operates under the doctrine of "nuclear fairness". Fact of the matter is: signatories of the NPT have a legal obligation not to acquire nuclear weapons. There's no way to apologize on Iran's behalf, and attempting to do so undermines the legitimate authorities (UN) and actively combats nonproliferation.
    slydessertfox likes this.
  9. Demondaze Xenos Scum

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,456
    Likes Received:
    925
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    TEXASLOL
    I'm fairly certain the clergy still holds plenty of power in important matters regarding the nation, such as the deceleration of war and the deployment of nuclear weapons.

    Edit: In fact, The Supreme Leader is pretty much the Iranian Commander in Chief. So...
  10. DukeofAwesome Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,272
    Likes Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    114
    Location:
    New Jersey USA
    You folk?

    You haven't really explained why you think so.
  11. Kali The World's Best Communist

    Member Since:
    Mar 13, 2012
    Message Count:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1,065
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ostensibly, sure. But the way in which A-jad has consolidated power is extralegal and very material. To put it bluntly, he's got the guns and the men with the guns, not by virtue of his position, but by virtue of his "policies". He's in a perfect position to stage a coup (disregarding the implications that would have on the actual people living in his country), though I don't think he ever would.
    Idealists. Haven't seen anything but in this thread.
    Well, for me personally, it should be obvious. The current state of nuclear politics contributes greatly to the current world order, and thus to the continued hegemony of the United States. However, for you idealist types, nonproliferation is inherently valuable.
    slydessertfox likes this.
  12. Demondaze Xenos Scum

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,456
    Likes Received:
    925
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    TEXASLOL
    Yeah, some how I don't see the Iranian masses reacting well to a switch from clerical rule to bat-shit insanity.

    As a self-proclaimed champion of liberty, what on Earth compels you to support a rogue theocracy's ability to increase and solidify it's geopolitical standing and further it's inherently destructive agenda?
  13. Shisno Doesn't know who did this

    Member Since:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Message Count:
    2,641
    Likes Received:
    739
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    NKVD Underground
    @Kali
    I am in no way attempting to defend A-jad, or Iran. Nor am I attempting to attack how the US and UN have approached this. I feel that we are proceeding amazingly through this process, by imposing sanctions on Iran. What I am attacking is the war hawking that Republicans are currently doing. I am opposed to the fact that on mere suspicion of a sovereign country making nuclear weapons, we will invade them. I find it silly, and it causes more trouble than it is worth.
    I am pretty sure actually that there is a lot of conflict between A-jad and the Ayatollah.
    I agree. With the advent of nuclear weapons, very clear cut wars have fallen out of style. At least between superpower countries.
  14. Demondaze Xenos Scum

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,456
    Likes Received:
    925
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    TEXASLOL
    I'm pretty sure the only reason he keeps Ahmadinejad around is for his general lack of charisma and inability to mobilize the masses in his support in the event of a theoretical coup such as mentioned above.
  15. StephenColbert27 Active Member

    Member Since:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    758
    Likes Received:
    222
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Middle of a Corn Field somewhere in Illinois
    All in all, the less people who have WMDs, the better. THAT MEANS YOU IRAN!
  16. Shisno Doesn't know who did this

    Member Since:
    Feb 27, 2012
    Message Count:
    2,641
    Likes Received:
    739
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    NKVD Underground
    I would think that applies to the Big Five more than Iran...
  17. StephenColbert27 Active Member

    Member Since:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Message Count:
    758
    Likes Received:
    222
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Middle of a Corn Field somewhere in Illinois
    I meant in terms of countries that are trying to get WMDs.
  18. Mobmaster Is Ozan

    Member Since:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Message Count:
    218
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Netherlands
    I know what i'm gonna say here is probably gonna sound stupid but...

    Why would Iran go to war with America? I mean seriously the last Nation to declare war on America was in WWII and those were the Japanese, what the flying fuck is wrong with you people? The only reason people really want to fucking kill you guys, is because of this kinda shit, going around other people's countries and killing everyone for oil, in the name of democracy. It just tends to piss people off.

    And seriously, the only way Iran will ever stop being fucked with by the US and allies is sadly through nuclear weapons. And btw, i trust the Iranians more with Nukes than i trust the US
  19. Demondaze Xenos Scum

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,456
    Likes Received:
    925
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    TEXASLOL
    That's an understatement.

    "I trust this convicted felon with a firearm more than this NRA member."
  20. Mobmaster Is Ozan

    Member Since:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Message Count:
    218
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Netherlands
    It's just infantile to think Iran will actually use it, it's like fearing the DPRK, also you do know allot of people have an intense dislike of American government, and you just need a retarded president at the wrong time, and that's it we got MAD.

Share This Page

Facebook: