By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Iran will be a Nuclear State by 2014.

Badassbab on 17 July 2012
Slimebeast said:
bouzane said:
Slimebeast said:
Icy-Zone said:
Kasz216 said:

Oh... and I think most Iranians would generally take offense at that video "Telling their side of the story".

I quite think you'd be arrested as soon as you hit the section on Religion...

So i'm not quite sure why you thought that video was going to give me the Iranian perspective.


Because the film was focused purely on religion and didn't cover topics such as the Israel's unlawful occupation of land, and the threat of a very unstable and aggressive country called America. I'm sure the majority (keyword since you love democracy so much) of Iranians would agree with, and already understand much of what was shown.

Basically put, if Iran isn't allowed nukes, the US shouldn't be allowed either.

If you want to follow a scoreboard for nuke usage (this could possibly be a way to measure stability, even though stability is hardly quantifiable) we can say that the US has two points:  for the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, whilst the Iranians have a score of 0. So to say that Iran is the type that would drop nukes should they acquire some, is purely speculation as there has been no past behaviour, on their part, that would suggeset they would.

Thank you and have a great day.

It always comes down to Israel.

Israel is the big obsession of communists and muslims. Apart from the persecution of Jews throughout history, the hate towards Israel is by far the strongest in political history ever.

 


Um, Evangelists seem to be just as obsessed with Israel as anybody else. Such a liability should not determine so much American legislation. Also, America's nuclear track record is one of, if not the single most irresponsible. As frightening as Iranian nukes would be, America's nuclear arsenal is far more dangerous to the people's of the earth.

Also, I must laugh at the concept of "Western freedom & secular democracy". I wish I lived in Russia where I would be free to buy a Saiga and smoke up. As far as democracy goes, it doesn't work. That's why America's founding fathers insisted upon a republic. Oh well, the religious right still gets to routinely impose their will upon the entire populace anyway :/

As an evangelical myself I have no problem to admit I have an obsession with Israel though. And it's for supernatural reasons, based on Biblical prophecies, not some hypocritical quasi-ethical lies that the socialists put forth (and some people from the Arab world too, but in their defense; that's only for tactical reasons - to make the Israeli-Arab conflict appear as a human-rights issue in front of a naive Western world). I want Israel to win and to keep Jerusalem forever, and I know they will win no matter how much Satan and the world hates them.

American nukes are no threat to the world. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise. What happened in the 40's is not relevant today.

The Mullah controlled Iran is an entrely different issue. Their hate towards Israel, and like Kasz described, in a desperate situation that nuclear threat would be a very serious threat. Then there's the risk of smaller dirty bombs. It's not wild fantasies to imagine a nuclear Iran sell primitive dirty bombs to Hizbollah to use against Israel. Such a scenario could hurt Israel a lot and with Israel's hands pretty tightly tied politically it wouldn't be that easy for them to retaliate if they wouldn't have clear evidence (and the world would blame them anyway).


So basically you're a nutter like those Mullahs then? 






Around the Network
Kasz216 on 17 July 2012
highwaystar101 said:
Kasz216 said:
highwaystar101 said:
Less stable countries than Iran have nuclear programmes. I often feel Iran get an unfair press with regards to that. If we were to prioritise then surely non-signatory countries who already possess nuclear weapons, like Pakistan or India, would be higher on the list of who to deal with.

I often feel it would be better to deal with Iran by initiating discussions towards a transparency agreement. The international community would allow them to conduct limited research and development, granted they remain signatories of the non-proliferation treaty. If they do build weapons, they would have to under the strict supervision of nuclear ready states and even as part of NATO's sharing programme so their weapons aren't strictly "theirs" (even though they're not a NATO state).

If they are indeed building nuclear weapons and we don't do that, then the alternatives (hostility, alienation, etc) could force them to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty. We don't want that with any nation.

(I should also say that I am not well read on this subject at all, so I could be very wrong)

India is a lot more stable then Iran, and again, they already have nukes.  It's not like they're just trying to get them.

Your arguement is highly flawed though.  I mean say you have one ambassador who you can't arrest because he has diplomatic immunity (Pakistan already having nukes) and he LOVES to drunk drive.

Does that mean we should let everybody drunk drive.... just because there is one guy who is a bigger threat who can get away with it?

I agree, my argument is highly flawed. Allowing them into a sharing program with the likes of Germany and Turkey (and at no point should they "possess" them) is absurd, it's a "Better the devil you know" solution.

I suppose in very specific and highly unlikely cases my solution may work. Using your analogy. Unlike Pakistan, the diplomat (now Iran) would still have to abide by the law. The difference is that he can drink, but we can take away his keys if he tries to drive because it's against the law. By no means is it a free ticket to drink and drive. But that is assuming that he is going to attempt to drive after drinking anyway. The better solution is to just not let him drink, so he can't even attempt to break the law to begin with.

It doesn't matter anyway, as Rath quite rightly pointed out that would break the treaty anyway. I think I just got excited by an ill-explored alternative.

I thought they'd been offering that deal forever though?

We'll let you build your Nuclear Plants, and we'll supply you with all the Uranium you need at discount prices,(through russia) and remove it when it's finished.



Slimebeast on 17 July 2012
Badassbab said:
Slimebeast said:
bouzane said:
Slimebeast said:
Icy-Zone said:
Kasz216 said:

Oh... and I think most Iranians would generally take offense at that video "Telling their side of the story".

I quite think you'd be arrested as soon as you hit the section on Religion...

So i'm not quite sure why you thought that video was going to give me the Iranian perspective.


Because the film was focused purely on religion and didn't cover topics such as the Israel's unlawful occupation of land, and the threat of a very unstable and aggressive country called America. I'm sure the majority (keyword since you love democracy so much) of Iranians would agree with, and already understand much of what was shown.

Basically put, if Iran isn't allowed nukes, the US shouldn't be allowed either.

If you want to follow a scoreboard for nuke usage (this could possibly be a way to measure stability, even though stability is hardly quantifiable) we can say that the US has two points:  for the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, whilst the Iranians have a score of 0. So to say that Iran is the type that would drop nukes should they acquire some, is purely speculation as there has been no past behaviour, on their part, that would suggeset they would.

Thank you and have a great day.

It always comes down to Israel.

Israel is the big obsession of communists and muslims. Apart from the persecution of Jews throughout history, the hate towards Israel is by far the strongest in political history ever.

 


Um, Evangelists seem to be just as obsessed with Israel as anybody else. Such a liability should not determine so much American legislation. Also, America's nuclear track record is one of, if not the single most irresponsible. As frightening as Iranian nukes would be, America's nuclear arsenal is far more dangerous to the people's of the earth.

Also, I must laugh at the concept of "Western freedom & secular democracy". I wish I lived in Russia where I would be free to buy a Saiga and smoke up. As far as democracy goes, it doesn't work. That's why America's founding fathers insisted upon a republic. Oh well, the religious right still gets to routinely impose their will upon the entire populace anyway :/

As an evangelical myself I have no problem to admit I have an obsession with Israel though. And it's for supernatural reasons, based on Biblical prophecies, not some hypocritical quasi-ethical lies that the socialists put forth (and some people from the Arab world too, but in their defense; that's only for tactical reasons - to make the Israeli-Arab conflict appear as a human-rights issue in front of a naive Western world). I want Israel to win and to keep Jerusalem forever, and I know they will win no matter how much Satan and the world hates them.

American nukes are no threat to the world. It's ridiculous to claim otherwise. What happened in the 40's is not relevant today.

The Mullah controlled Iran is an entrely different issue. Their hate towards Israel, and like Kasz described, in a desperate situation that nuclear threat would be a very serious threat. Then there's the risk of smaller dirty bombs. It's not wild fantasies to imagine a nuclear Iran sell primitive dirty bombs to Hizbollah to use against Israel. Such a scenario could hurt Israel a lot and with Israel's hands pretty tightly tied politically it wouldn't be that easy for them to retaliate if they wouldn't have clear evidence (and the world would blame them anyway).


So basically you're a nutter like those Mullahs then? 

No.

My point is that nearly everyone involved with the Arab-Israeli conflict, even civilians who only have opinions on the matter, is a nutter, meaning that they don't take their stand on it on a rational ethical basis but on an emotional or religious basis. Some just pretend to be ethically rooted or they lie even to themselves that they are when they are in fact emotionally invested.



Badassbab on 17 July 2012
Slimebeast said:

I understand it's terrifying. I don't think it will destroy our paradise though because this earth certainly is no paradise.

Threat and threat. Theoretical thrat like a cold war threat. Obviously the nukes help USA and Russia to control the world to some extent. But the more likely a real actual use of those nukes by a nation is, the stronger the threat naturally is. I can't imagine a scenario where USA or Russia would use nukes, but I can easily imagine scenarios where rogue states would use nukes or spread them to terrorists in the form of dirty bombs.

The threats against Iran are mild than vice versa:

"All options are on the table. If Iran disagrees to inspections we might do a surgical strike against theur nuclear facilites"
compared to
"Israel with the help of its lapdog USA is the Satan of the world and should be wiped off the face of the earth, and inshallah, we will witness that day".

You've been truly hook, lined and sinkered. You've just made those quotes up. At least attribute them to yourself.

During the Cold War there were numerous incidents between the US and the USSR that could have triggered a third world war. This is basic historical fact. And I mean seriously you can't imagine a scenario were the US and Russia could nuke each other? Really?! Do you know anything about history, do you even watch any news?

Most of the threat is towards Iran. Like massive threat. Picture this. The US has sent FOUR aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf. FOUR!!! A squadron of F-22 has been sent to the UAE airfield. In addition to this Israel has also threatened Iran using it's airforce and submarine force. Germany has sold Israel at a massive subsidised rate state of the art submarines that can launch cruise missiles or even nukes. The US is selling tens of billions worth of offensive weaponary to the Gulf countries and Israel. Of course Israel's is subsidised while the Gulf States are recycling petro dollars into the US arms industry (and getting inferior weapons compared to Israel).

Now let's look at the Iranian 'threat'. The lowest defense spending in the region at less than 2% of GDP. Compare that to Saudi Arabia at 10% or Israel at 7%. Iran's military is a decade or two behind other countires in the region. Under sanctions and pressure from the US to other countries not to sell it weapons, Iran has had to rely on it's local defense industry as of late. It's posture is purely defensive and retaliatory. It's surrounded by nuclear states and right across the Persian Gulf sits the US Fifth Fleet. 

Iran's already been attacked. It's scientists have been taken out, it's been subjected to major cyber warfare and it's Central bank has been penalised. 

This whole argument that if it's Mullahs were cornered and would launch nukes could apply to any country. If Russia had the US cornered, the US may well decide to go nuclear expect Russia would never be able to corner the US as the US would've gone nuke at the veryu beginning should they have tried anything.






Icy-Zone on 17 July 2012
Badassbab said:
Slimebeast said:

I understand it's terrifying. I don't think it will destroy our paradise though because this earth certainly is no paradise.

Threat and threat. Theoretical thrat like a cold war threat. Obviously the nukes help USA and Russia to control the world to some extent. But the more likely a real actual use of those nukes by a nation is, the stronger the threat naturally is. I can't imagine a scenario where USA or Russia would use nukes, but I can easily imagine scenarios where rogue states would use nukes or spread them to terrorists in the form of dirty bombs.

The threats against Iran are mild than vice versa:

"All options are on the table. If Iran disagrees to inspections we might do a surgical strike against theur nuclear facilites"
compared to
"Israel with the help of its lapdog USA is the Satan of the world and should be wiped off the face of the earth, and inshallah, we will witness that day".

You've been truly hook, lined and sinkered. You've just made those quotes up. At least attribute them to yourself.

During the Cold War there were numerous incidents between the US and the USSR that could have triggered a third world war. This is basic historical fact. And I mean seriously you can't imagine a scenario were the US and Russia could nuke each other? Really?! Do you know anything about history, do you even watch any news?

Most of the threat is towards Iran. Like massive threat. Picture this. The US has sent FOUR aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf. FOUR!!! A squadron of F-22 has been sent to the UAE airfield. In addition to this Israel has also threatened Iran using it's airforce and submarine force. Germany has sold Israel at a massive subsidised rate state of the art submarines that can launch cruise missiles or even nukes. The US is selling tens of billions worth of offensive weaponary to the Gulf countries and Israel. Of course Israel's is subsidised while the Gulf States are recycling petro dollars into the US arms industry (and getting inferior weapons compared to Israel).

Now let's look at the Iranian 'threat'. The lowest defense spending in the region at less than 2% of GDP. Compare that to Saudi Arabia at 10% or Israel at 7%. Iran's military is a decade or two behind other countires in the region. Under sanctions and pressure from the US to other countries not to sell it weapons, Iran has had to rely on it's local defense industry as of late. It's posture is purely defensive and retaliatory. It's surrounded by nuclear states and right across the Persian Gulf sits the US Fifth Fleet. 

Iran's already been attacked. It's scientists have been taken out, it's been subjected to major cyber warfare and it's Central bank has been penalised. 

This whole argument that if it's Mullahs were cornered and would launch nukes could apply to any country. If Russia had the US cornered, the US may well decide to go nuclear expect Russia would never be able to corner the US as the US would've gone nuke at the veryu beginning should they have tried anything.


If people honestly believe that Iran is being more aggressive than US or Israel, they need to reevaluate whether or not explaining world politics is something they want to pursue, whether it be for profession or as a hobby. Unless of course they are a propagandist.



"Common sense is not so common." - Voltaire

Platinumed Destiny, Vanquish, Ninja Gaiden Sigma Plus, Catherine, and Metal Gear Rising. Get on my level!!


Get your Portable ID!                                                                                     

Around the Network
ArnoldRimmer on 18 July 2012
Kasz216 said:

1) Size in terms of World influence and power... obviously.

I usually don't talk about world influence and power in measures of "size", so that wasn't really obvious to me.

Kasz216 said:

2)  There is more satifaction about how their government is being run then in most places in Africa and the Middle East.  It doesn't change the fact that there will eventually be a revolution of the people.  Was wrong on the majority, will admit that.  Guess it was mostly just the young.  Still worth noting, since the young eventually will be the majority.

What's your source that there is really more satisfaction about how the government is being run in most places in Africa and the Middle east? To me, the World Public Opinion surveys suggest that the iranians are rather satisfied with their political system in comparison with other countries. For example, in their surveys they asked the people of several countries how much the will of the people should influence the governing of the country, and how much they think the governing of the country actually is influenced by the will of the people.

On a 0-10 scale, the iranians gave an 8.4 for how much the governing SHOULD be influenced by the will of the people, and an 5.9 rating on how much the governing actually IS influenced. The gap between these two values (8.4-5.9=2.5) can be considered a kind of measure for "perceived deficit of influence of the will of the people". And I think revolutions are likely when this perceived deficit of influence of the will of the people is getting too big, because that probably means people have so much lost their faith in the current political system that they consider a revolution the only choice.

Now these values are more interesting when having a comparison:

Egypt - Should: 8.3 / Is: 3.2 / Gap: 5.1

Nigeria - Should: 8.5 / Is: 3.9 / Gap: 4.6

Azerbaijan - Should: 8.3 / Is: 4.2 / Gap: 4.1

USA - Should: 7.9 / Is: 4.0 / Gap: 3.9

Russia - Should: 8.6 / Is: 4.7 / Gap: 3.9

Palestine - Should: 7.6 / Is: 4.1 / Gap: 3.5

Turkey - Should: 8.4 / Is: 5.0 / Gap: 3.4

Britain - Should: 8.0 / Is: 4.9 / Gap: 3.1

France - Should: 7.3 / Is: 4.6 / Gap: 2.7

Iran - Should: 8.4 / Is: 5.9 / Gap: 2.5

China - Should: 8.0 / Is: 6.7 / Gap: 1.3

Jordan - Should: 6.6 / Is: 5.4 / Gap: 1.2

From those values I believe a revolution is actually more probable in the USA than Iran. You are of course right that the younger people in Iran are thinking different, so over time they will ask for changes. But why should those changes come by a revolution?

Kasz216 said:

3) The President is trying to position himself to win more power as it is. 

Actually, the president (we're talking about Ahmadinejad, right?) has already announced that he will completely leave politics next year, when the next iranian president gets elected. Why should he try to gain more power in the little time remaining? Even if Iran decided today to really develop the atomic bomb, Ahmadinejad would already be out of office by the time it's finished.



ArnoldRimmer on 18 July 2012
Slimebeast said:

The threats against Iran are mild than vice versa:

"All options are on the table. If Iran disagrees to inspections we might do a surgical strike against theur nuclear facilites"
compared to
"Israel with the help of its lapdog USA is the Satan of the world and should be wiped off the face of the earth, and inshallah, we will witness that day".

You're using that old "wiped off"-quote that has long been proven to be nothing but a wrong translation. And even in the correct translation, it was only a word-by-word quotation of a statement uttered in the 80s by a completely different person.

On the other hand, in response to the wrong translation, israeli president Netanyahu actually did threaten to wipe Iran off the map in a TV interview.



ArnoldRimmer on 18 July 2012
Kasz216 said:

If Iran was a stable democracy mostly free of corruption (Say one that would be listed a "Full Democracy" in the Democracy index) fine.

Out of the 9 countries that definitely already have the atomic bomb, that criterion only applies to two - and yet one of those two countries is the only country that has ever actually used one. So that does not seem like a good criterion to me.

Kasz216 said:

I thought they'd been offering that deal forever though?

We'll let you build your Nuclear Plants, and we'll supply you with all the Uranium you need at discount prices,(through russia) and remove it when it's finished.

From the iranian point of view, this is simply not an acceptable solution.

After the islamic revolution in 1979, when the iranians got rid of the oppressive shah, the west thought it was a clever idea to impose tough economical sanctions on Iran. The usual "if we ruin their economy, the people will be angry and revolt" logic. For decades Iran has now suffered from very tough sanctions, but unfortunately that didn't have the effect we were hoping for. Quite the contrary, they got pissed of the USA and now they're proud for what they've reached. Over the decades, Iran learned the hard way that it's best not to be dependant on others, because whatever product they were severely depending other countries on, that product would be sure to be sanctioned in order to put pressure on them.

With the long history of the iranian energy sector (which is critically important to their economy) being a target of embargos, their whole wish for nuclear power was in the end the result of the west's own stupid behaviour. What they want is their energy sector to be independant from other countries, and since Iran is uranium-rich, atomic energy is a obvious choice. But if they would have to rely on other countries for whatever step in the nuclear process, their whole point of having nuclear power would be gone, because then they would be just as vulnerable to sanctions for pressure as before.



Kasz216 on 18 July 2012
ArnoldRimmer said:
Kasz216 said:

If Iran was a stable democracy mostly free of corruption (Say one that would be listed a "Full Democracy" in the Democracy index) fine.

Out of the 9 countries that definitely already have the atomic bomb, that criterion only applies to two - and yet one of those two countries is the only country that has ever actually used one. So that does not seem like a good criterion to me.

Kasz216 said:

I thought they'd been offering that deal forever though?

We'll let you build your Nuclear Plants, and we'll supply you with all the Uranium you need at discount prices,(through russia) and remove it when it's finished.

From the iranian point of view, this is simply not an acceptable solution.

After the islamic revolution in 1979, when the iranians got rid of the oppressive shah, the west thought it was a clever idea to impose tough economical sanctions on Iran. The usual "if we ruin their economy, the people will be angry and revolt" logic. For decades Iran has now suffered from very tough sanctions, but unfortunately that didn't have the effect we were hoping for. Quite the contrary, they got pissed of the USA and now they're proud for what they've reached. Over the decades, Iran learned the hard way that it's best not to be dependant on others, because whatever product they were severely depending other countries on, that product would be sure to be sanctioned in order to put pressure on them.

With the long history of the iranian energy sector (which is critically important to their economy) being a target of embargos, their whole wish for nuclear power was in the end the result of the west's own stupid behaviour. What they want is their energy sector to be independant from other countries, and since Iran is uranium-rich, atomic energy is a obvious choice. But if they would have to rely on other countries for whatever step in the nuclear process, their whole point of having nuclear power would be gone, because then they would be just as vulnerable to sanctions for pressure as before.

1) It may not seem that way to you... but it's  great criteria for the reasons already explained.  As for the only country used question?  Already adressed and answered.  If you care to keep with the point.  Address the answer.

2)  Explain to me why it/'s unacceptable.  Nothing you've stated holds up as a reason because  they've been offered cheap nuclear matierals from the russians at a discount.   Matierals they have to buy anyway... that's the carrot.

Then they've been offered free disposal of nuclear matieral already use up... matieral that can no longer be used for power and only good for one thing.   Nuclear weapons.

So such an agreement makes them no more vulnerable to sanctions then they are now... unless they plan to make nuclear weapons.



Kenology on 18 July 2012

Didn't read the thread, but I will say that Iran becoming a nuclear state is expected. With Israel having several nukes and refusing the to be a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and US bases surrounding it in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can see their justification.

ALL countries should get rid of nuclear weapons.  Otherwise there'll only be a nuclear arms race.