By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TheJimbo1234 on 03 September 2013
Edit Thread
PDF said:
TheJimbo1234 said:
PDF said:

I know there are many Syria threads already but this one has more to do with Iran.  Is the real goal to send a message to Iran about their nuclear program or is it really about chemical weapons?

An attack will send a clear message to Iran that when we say all options on the table we mean it.  Giving strength to the threat of military action.  While not attacking will make the US look like we are bluffing.

or is this really about Syria crossing the red line of using chemical weapons?   Maybe a mix of both.

Also if it is about Iran will it work to strengthen the threat or only strengthen their resolve to get a nuke.  

 

  currently taking a non proliferation class and have to write a a paper.


It has nothing to do with Iran - Iran have actually stated that whom ever used chem weapons needs to be punished.

Thing is, chemical weapons are potentially far worse wmd than nuclear due to size and ease of production. The USA realise that no one should ever be allowed to use such things as once it goes unpunished, the lid is off and all hell will break loose.


Lip service, they are still Syria closes ally.   Suggesting chemical weapons are far worse than nuclear is wrong.  Hundreds or thousands vs hundreds of thousands.  Chemical weapons are really only something that states can use on their own population.  

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/irans-moderate-new-president-still-supports-assad/278361/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/26/syria-us-un-inspection-kerry

 

iran is on Syria side but less has to do with Syria.   They are no real threat to US or US interests.  Iran wants to become a regional hegemony. That's a real problem and so far despite US threats they continue to seek nukes.  If the US won't even back up its word against Syria why would they against a much more powerful foe with Iran?

 

This is not the first time chemical weapons have been used.  In the past we did nothing to stop Iraq from using them on Iran.  We would be doing nothing if it was clear just the rebels alone were using chemical weapons.  A lot more is at stake than the use of chemical weapons.


So so wrong.

First off, it is highly debatable which is worse. Nuclear weapons are very hard and expensive to produce, and then the delivery method is also complex. Also remember that a new state would make a simple atomic bomb rather than a hydrogen bomb, thus the explosion is only a few kilotons. 

Chemical weapons, on the other hand, are very easy and compartively cheap to produce. Combined with being very easy to deliver and light/any weight you want, they are a far more realistic threat. Also, for terrorism, they are the perfect weapon seeing that they are odourless, colourless, and carried through the air. If you dropped the same weight of nerve agents as you did the mass of a nuclear warhead (~ 4 tons), you could wipe out a city within minutes if dispersed correctly (which would be realtively easy to do). So why you think nerve agents only kill small amounts of people is beyond me. Why it killed only thousands (only thousands?!) in Syria will be due to small use and low density. Just look what happened when it was dropped in the Tokyo underground.

Also, to say it is something states use on their own people....erm, what the holy hell are you blathering about? They were used in WW1 and in the Iraq-Iran war....You just made that up didn't you.

If no one stops Syria for doing this, then it is gloves off for the worlds shit countries to produce chemical weapons as the reason they are not made is due to this fear of punishment from the rest of the world. Now if you think mad countries should be allowed to produce wmds then you lack any foresight.

 At the time, Iraq had a massive army and the Wests army did not have the skill to just quickly knock out chemical facilites nor, and this is the critical part, gather evidence of it happening. Evidence only came to light at the end of the war. Yet now, due to social media, satellites etc, we can observe these events as they unfold. Also, the weapons were used on the front line, which yes, would still be condemed, is very different from dropping them on a suburb.