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.

SamuelRSmith on 15 July 2012
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 think the reasoning has to do with Israel. I don't think that Pakistan or India were ever any threat to Israel, only to each other... which is still tragic, but not of significant importance to the USA - at least, not as much as Israel.

Of course, it can be argued whether Iran is really a threat to Israel. But, that is the belief in the halls of power in D.C. and Jeruselum.



Around the Network
oldschoolfool on 15 July 2012

Why should America act,were not the world's policeman. I agree with Obama in not trying the talking/imposing sactions thing. I mean,I guess we can act on what ever attack plan,we have in place,but that would be highly unpopular and uneccesary in my opinion.



Kasz216 on 15 July 2012
Badassbab said:
Kaz,I'm not supporting the the clerical fascists and it's likely Iran is probably trying to acquire the know how of developing nuclear weapons so the Mullahs can order one to be built if they feel the regime is under threat with it's very own survival from outside powers but saying Iran would be a lot more aggressive if it was a super power isn't a valid argument against the Mullahs. That argument can be applied to any country so not sure what point you're trying to make there.

Sure it is.

The point is... proportionally, Iran would be more agressive.

If a larger power Iran would be agressive... and it would be more agressive then most western countries are.

IE, make Iran the size of any western nation, and they will be more agressive then that nation would be.

 

Make Iran the size of France for example... and Iran will be more aggressive then the current france is.



M.U.G.E.N on 15 July 2012

Bring back G BUSH NAO!



In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!

"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"

For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!

Millenium on 15 July 2012

Good for them.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 15 July 2012
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?



Kantor on 15 July 2012
Millenium said:
Good for them.


Good for them, bad for us.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Millenium on 15 July 2012
Kantor said:
Millenium said:
Good for them.


Good for them, bad for us.


Out of all these countries that posses or are believed to posses either Biological and/or Chemical, Nuclear, Radiological weapons:

Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Canada
China (PRC)
France
Germany
India
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Japan Libya
Mexico
Netherlands
North Korea
Pakistan
Poland
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Sweden
Syria
Taiwan (ROC)
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States

I don't have any particular reason to pick out Iran as the most likely or any more likely than any "western" countries to actual use them on me and/or a large population, so no, not really.



Mr Khan on 15 July 2012
Millenium said:
Kantor said:
Millenium said:
Good for them.


Good for them, bad for us.


Out of all these countries that posses or are believed to posses either Biological and/or Chemical, Nuclear, Radiological weapons:

Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Canada
China (PRC)
France
Germany
India
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Japan Libya
Mexico
Netherlands
North Korea
Pakistan
Poland
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Sweden
Syria
Taiwan (ROC)
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States

I don't have any particular reason to pick out Iran as the most likely or any more likely than any "western" countries to actual use them on me and/or a large population, so no, not really.

Japan has chemical/biological weapons? And how would Iraq still be allowed to have them?



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Millenium on 15 July 2012
Mr Khan said:
Millenium said:
Kantor said:
Millenium said:
Good for them.


Good for them, bad for us.


Out of all these countries that posses or are believed to posses either Biological and/or Chemical, Nuclear, Radiological weapons:

Albania
Algeria
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Canada
China (PRC)
France
Germany
India
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Japan Libya
Mexico
Netherlands
North Korea
Pakistan
Poland
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Sweden
Syria
Taiwan (ROC)
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States

I don't have any particular reason to pick out Iran as the most likely or any more likely than any "western" countries to actual use them on me and/or a large population, so no, not really.

Japan has chemical/biological weapons? And how would Iraq still be allowed to have them?

"Out of all these countries that posses or are believed to posses either Biological and/or Chemical, Nuclear, Radiological weapons:"

Some of these countries will have either previously possesed or are believed to currently posses such weapons. The list is most likely a little outdated.