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.

Rath 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)

Building a nuclear weapon would completely break the non-proliferation treaty under which they are required to not manufacture any nuclear weapons. If Iran was allowed by the treaty countries to build a nuke, the treaty would effectively no longer exist.

It is better that they withdraw from the treaty to build weapons than be allowed to build weapons while remaining part of the treaty.



Around the Network
Badassbab on 16 July 2012
Kasz216 said:
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.

In what way would it be more aggressive though? As in why would it want to be and are you guessing this or basing this on historical facts?






Badassbab on 16 July 2012
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 wouldn't say India is a lot more stable than Iran.

Let's take a look at their internal threats and near immediate external threats.

 

INDIA EXTERNAL

India vs Pakistan- Kashmir 

India vs China- Arunchal Pradesh

INDIA INTERNAL

Naxilite-Moaist Insurgency

Muslim Insurgents in Kashmir

Plus many smaller yet significant insurgencies- http://www.opinion-maker.org/2010/12/insurgency-movements-in-india/

 

IRAN EXTERNAL

Past issues with Iraq over Basra

A few islands in the Persian/Arab Gulf in dispute with the UAE

Iran claims Bahrain

IRAN INTERNAL

Jundallah Insurgency (Leader killed but replaced. Small group.)

M.K.O Insurgeny (Camped in Iraq and under pressure to relocate. Small group)

Kurdish Seperatists (Small time based mainly in Iraq and Turkey where most of the fighting did or continues to take place)

Green Movement (Crushed in 2009 yet may reappear one day)

 

Seem's to be India has the much bigger issue. The Iranian Government for all it's ills, isn't that unstable though it is wobbling due to the massive external threats against it by the West through sanctions and threat of military action and the very large Green Movement which will probably one try and attempt to get rid of the Mullahs again.






sully1311 on 16 July 2012

So fucking what, let them have them. Why shouldn't they?



crissindahouse on 16 July 2012

i see next provision of work for employees of the arm industry incoming anytime soon. bombing iran will need a lot of bombs. many bombs -> many jobs.

but what am i saying, we should be happy about a safer world as result. only 15897 more wars and we will live on a safe planet.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 16 July 2012
crissindahouse said:
i see next provision of work for employees of the arm industry incoming anytime soon. bombing iran will need a lot of bombs. many bombs -> many jobs.

but what am i saying, we should be happy about a safer world as result. only 15897 more wars and we will live on a safe planet.

Nah.

I mean, you know how many bombs the US has to throw away yearly because they expire.

That was the thing about the Kosovo war, it was done on the cheap and clinton just dropped mostly old bombs that were about to be decomissioned anyway...

unfortunitly, a  lot of those were the unethical cluster bombs.



SamuelRSmith on 16 July 2012
crissindahouse said:
i see next provision of work for employees of the arm industry incoming anytime soon. bombing iran will need a lot of bombs. many bombs -> many jobs.

but what am i saying, we should be happy about a safer world as result. only 15897 more wars and we will live on a safe planet.


What I find funny is that, during one of the Clinton-Bush-Perot debates, Bush Sr. mentioned that "we'd need to find a place for those working in the military industry now that the cold war is over". It seems like that place remained in the same industry, building stuff for a policy of infinite warfare.

EDIT: Re-reading your post... I do hope you are not saying that war is good for the economy... that is one of the biggest (and most frequently disproved) ones out there.



SamuelRSmith on 16 July 2012
Rath said:

Building a nuclear weapon would completely break the non-proliferation treaty under which they are required to not manufacture any nuclear weapons. If Iran was allowed by the treaty countries to build a nuke, the treaty would effectively no longer exist.

It is better that they withdraw from the treaty to build weapons than be allowed to build weapons while remaining part of the treaty.

Not to agree or disagree with you, just for my own clarification.

Building nuclear weapons is fine under the treaty, as long as your nuclear stock doesn't increase? That is, the countries are allowed to build bombs to replace decommissioned ones?



Kasz216 on 16 July 2012
Badassbab said:
Kasz216 said:
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.

In what way would it be more aggressive though? As in why would it want to be and are you guessing this or basing this on historical facts?

Iran has specific regional powers it has beefs with... pretty much most of the middle east, them not being "Arab".  Way more nits to pick.

Secondly, they're not a democracy.  Meaning that the leaders can't just go to war with whoever, they might sneak by a war here or there, but even if they do, public outcry could cost the elected leaders.  The Iranians just wouldn't give a shit.

Thirdly, their leaders when being removed from power, face fear or daeth.  You are much more likely to give it all up and nuke another country if your option is death, or death as that guy used the first nukes since WW2.

Then you are, first guy that used nukes since WW2 and Guy who gets paid a sweet pension, gets sweet healthcare and can charge seven figures for speaking events.



Kasz216 on 16 July 2012
Badassbab 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 wouldn't say India is a lot more stable than Iran.

Let's take a look at their internal threats and near immediate external threats.

 

INDIA EXTERNAL

India vs Pakistan- Kashmir 

India vs China- Arunchal Pradesh

INDIA INTERNAL

Naxilite-Moaist Insurgency

Muslim Insurgents in Kashmir

Plus many smaller yet significant insurgencies- http://www.opinion-maker.org/2010/12/insurgency-movements-in-india/

 

IRAN EXTERNAL

Past issues with Iraq over Basra

A few islands in the Persian/Arab Gulf in dispute with the UAE

Iran claims Bahrain

IRAN INTERNAL

Jundallah Insurgency (Leader killed but replaced. Small group.)

M.K.O Insurgeny (Camped in Iraq and under pressure to relocate. Small group)

Kurdish Seperatists (Small time based mainly in Iraq and Turkey where most of the fighting did or continues to take place)

Green Movement (Crushed in 2009 yet may reappear one day)

 

Seem's to be India has the much bigger issue. The Iranian Government for all it's ills, isn't that unstable though it is wobbling due to the massive external threats against it by the West through sanctions and threat of military action and the very large Green Movement which will probably one try and attempt to get rid of the Mullahs again.

Well that and Iran has the fact that the majority of it's population hates it's rulership. Green movement or not something will happen.

A popular revolution can thrown out the current government at any time.  It's not like there isn't precedent.

 

Additionally, you seem to be ignoring the big power struggle between the more secular leaders with the non secular ones.   Certain parts of the military and the religious leadership seem to be plotting against each other.