Iran Should be allowed to obtain Nuclear weapons.

[52ndStreet]

All nuclear weapons should be renounced, wherever they are and whoever may have them. An intelligent being would never have made the awful things. The fact that humans are stupid enough to construct these devices is argument enough against their having them. Unfortunately, there is no objective power that can stop the march of lunacy.

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to war. Countries that have them realize their destructive potential and dear not use them.Since we had nuclear proliferation, during the
1950, and 60's, there has not been a nuclear war between nations, since the first two Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

We can say Nuclear weapons are a major deterrent to conventional, and nuclear war.
Let the historical records be the looked at.

Excuse me, but didn't Saddam Hussein just dare us to step into his yard a while back? He knew the US had capabilities, right?

This is a purely lame argument.

Its called "MAD" Mutual Assured Destruction" MAD, this is what nuclear weapons provide for, and this is why they are the best deterrent with regards to global thermo nuclear war.

 

[there4eyeM]

All nuclear weapons should be renounced, wherever they are and whoever may have them. An intelligent being would never have made the awful things. The fact that humans are stupid enough to construct these devices is argument enough against their having them. Unfortunately, there is no objective power that can stop the march of lunacy.

They saved 10's of millions of lives.

with out them we would speak of the Japanese in the past tense only.

Where did this figure of lives saved come from? Could it possibly refer to the totally unnecessary invasion of Japan that insane planners had in the cards?

Further more, anyone who thinks weapons deter war has missed the lessons of history. War may be delayed a bit, but never fully deterred. The idea that having nuclear weapons somehow miraculously renders nations wise and prudent is so patently unsupportable that it is difficult to understand how it began. Fortunately for the US, the USSR was just as materialistic and valued survival. Why should we think this would always be the case?

 

[Katzndogz]

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to war. Countries that have them realize their destructive potential and dear not use them.Since we had nuclear proliferation, during the
1950, and 60's, there has not been a nuclear war between nations, since the first two Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

We can say Nuclear weapons are a major deterrent to conventional, and nuclear war.
Let the historical records be the looked at.

Excuse me, but didn't Saddam Hussein just dare us to step into his yard a while back? He knew the US had capabilities, right?

This is a purely lame argument.

Its called "MAD" Mutual Assured Destruction" MAD, this is what nuclear weapons provide for, and this is why they are the best deterrent with regards to global thermo nuclear war.

MAD only works with people who don't want to die in the first place. When one party craves martyrdom and death as the path to paradise MAD is ineffective.

 

[High_Gravity]

Iran should be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, as a stabalizing gesture for the entire middle east. Right now only Israel has nuclear weapons in the middle east. This has caused the entire region to unstable, and volatile.

Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon, will bring satbility to the Middle East. There will be
a situation of deterrent.

Israeli access to nuclear weapons is the main reason for the increased tension in the Middle East today.

If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, tensions will decrase, and be balanced out through out the entire middle eastern area. It will no longer be the haves and the haves not situation
that we have today, which is causing undue tension in the region for conflict.

You are a retard.

 

[oldernwiser]

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to war. Countries that have them realize their destructive potential and dear not use them.Since we had nuclear proliferation, during the
1950, and 60's, there has not been a nuclear war between nations, since the first two Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

We can say Nuclear weapons are a major deterrent to conventional, and nuclear war.
Let the historical records be the looked at.

Excuse me, but didn't Saddam Hussein just dare us to step into his yard a while back? He knew the US had capabilities, right?

This is a purely lame argument.

Its called "MAD" Mutual Assured Destruction" MAD, this is what nuclear weapons provide for, and this is why they are the best deterrent with regards to global thermo nuclear war.

I know exactly what it's called - and I remember Walter Cronkite explaining it to us while we waited for the sirens to go off.

Your argument is that having nuclear capability is some kind of deterrent. It isn't - it's just another step up in the arsenal waiting to be used. Moammar himself stated that if he had a nuclear warhead he would "carry it to Israel" himself. Quite the deterrent, I'd say.

 

[Jos]

Moammar himself stated that if he had a nuclear warhead he would "carry it to Israel" himself. Quite the deterrent, I'd say.

Who is Moammar? and give us a link to your claim

 

[oldernwiser]

All nuclear weapons should be renounced, wherever they are and whoever may have them. An intelligent being would never have made the awful things. The fact that humans are stupid enough to construct these devices is argument enough against their having them. Unfortunately, there is no objective power that can stop the march of lunacy.

They saved 10's of millions of lives.

with out them we would speak of the Japanese in the past tense only.

Where did this figure of lives saved come from? Could it possibly refer to the totally unnecessary invasion of Japan that insane planners had in the cards?

Further more, anyone who thinks weapons deter war has missed the lessons of history. War may be delayed a bit, but never fully deterred. The idea that having nuclear weapons somehow miraculously renders nations wise and prudent is so patently unsupportable that it is difficult to understand how it began. Fortunately for the US, the USSR was just as materialistic and valued survival. Why should we think this would always be the case?

And once, they valued a surprise attack even more.

At some point in every conflict, one side will use their weapon of "last resort". It's human nature to prevail.

 

[oldernwiser]

Moammar himself stated that if he had a nuclear warhead he would "carry it to Israel" himself. Quite the deterrent, I'd say.

Who is Moammar? and give us a link to your claim

You'd find it by googling 20th century Libyan leaders.
Not sure if there is an on line link to the story which appeared in the 70s, While you're looking for Libyan leaders, maybe you'll find the reference.

 

[Jos]

Iran: We do not want nuclear weapons

Ali Akbar Salehi is foreign minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Forty-five years ago, the United States sold my country a research reactor as well as weapons-grade uranium as its fuel. Not long afterward, America agreed to help Iran set up the full nuclear fuel cycle along with atomic power plants. The U.S. argument was that nuclear power would provide for the growing needs of our economy and free our remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals.

That rationale has not changed.

Iran: We do not want nuclear weapons - The Washington Post

 

[Jos]

Moammar himself stated that if he had a nuclear warhead he would "carry it to Israel" himself. Quite the deterrent, I'd say.

Who is Moammar? and give us a link to your claim

You'd find it by googling 20th century Libyan leaders.
Not sure if there is an on line link to the story which appeared in the 70s, While you're looking for Libyan leaders, maybe you'll find the reference.

This thread is about "Iran Should be allowed to obtain Nuclear weapons."

 

[Douger]

Agree. No question.
Iran with Duh Big'un. Will keep IsNtReal in line.
At that point they could tell IsNtReal to back the fuck off and abide by it's sanctions or " vanish from the map" ( which Iran never actually said)////I did.

 

[oldernwiser]

Who is Moammar? and give us a link to your claim

You'd find it by googling 20th century Libyan leaders.
Not sure if there is an on line link to the story which appeared in the 70s, While you're looking for Libyan leaders, maybe you'll find the reference.

This thread is about "Iran Should be allowed to obtain Nuclear weapons."

Fair enough...

This article would make a good counter to the deterrence argument.

I really have a hard time seeing Iran - or any other middle eastern country - playing with the fire of nuclear holocaust right now. Qaddafi was able to extract nuclear materials that he INTENDED for use as weapons before the Israeli's took out his reactor (with jets and HE explosives, not nukes), it's not too big a stretch to see who he wanted to point those weapons at.

Sorry if you don't think his insane mind-set isn't played out all over that area even today.

 

[hortysir]

Iran should be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, as a stabalizing gesture for the entire middle east. Right now only Israel has nuclear weapons in the middle east. This has caused the entire region to unstable, and volatile.

Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon, will bring satbility to the Middle East. There will be
a situation of deterrent.

Israeli access to nuclear weapons is the main reason for the increased tension in the Middle East today.

If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, tensions will decrase, and be balanced out through out the entire middle eastern area. It will no longer be the haves and the haves not situation
that we have today, which is causing undue tension in the region for conflict.

India, Pakistan.........

 

[oldernwiser]

If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, tensions will decrase, and be balanced out through out the entire middle eastern area. It will no longer be the haves and the haves not situation
that we have today, which is causing undue tension in the region for conflict.

India, Pakistan.........

Making a point?

 

[High_Gravity]

Iran should be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, as a stabalizing gesture for the entire middle east. Right now only Israel has nuclear weapons in the middle east. This has caused the entire region to unstable, and volatile.

Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon, will bring satbility to the Middle East. There will be
a situation of deterrent.

Israeli access to nuclear weapons is the main reason for the increased tension in the Middle East today.

If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, tensions will decrase, and be balanced out through out the entire middle eastern area. It will no longer be the haves and the haves not situation
that we have today, which is causing undue tension in the region for conflict.

India, Pakistan.........

Technically not in the Middle East.

 

[hortysir]

If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, tensions will decrase, and be balanced out through out the entire middle eastern area. It will no longer be the haves and the haves not situation
that we have today, which is causing undue tension in the region for conflict.

India, Pakistan.........

Making a point?

Israel isn't the only nuclear nation in the region

 

[oldernwiser]

Iran: We do not want nuclear weapons

Ali Akbar Salehi is foreign minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Forty-five years ago, the United States sold my country a research reactor as well as weapons-grade uranium as its fuel. Not long afterward, America agreed to help Iran set up the full nuclear fuel cycle along with atomic power plants. The U.S. argument was that nuclear power would provide for the growing needs of our economy and free our remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals.

That rationale has not changed.

Iran: We do not want nuclear weapons - The Washington Post

Nice tonality, sounds reasonable...

Poor Iran... They're trying to build a stockpile of weapons-grade fissile material and when they ask the IAEA for fuel for their medical reactor, they get more sanctions rained down on them. My heart truly bleeds. If they need more fuel for medical purposes, shut down and dismantle the weapons plant first and show the world what humanitarians you really are.

He hits this one right on the head:

All relationships — whether between parents and children, spouses or even nation-states — are based on trust. The example of the Tehran Research Reactor vividly illustrates the key issue between Iran and the United States: lack of trust.

Trust can be built upon, but not in the shadow of secrecy. Poor Iran thinks it's the US's fault that there is no trust.

If the intention of dialogue is merely to prevent cold conflict from turning hot, rather than to resolve differences, suspicion will linger. Trust will not be established. Despite sanctions, threats of war, assassinations of several of our scientists and other forms of terrorism, we have chosen to remain committed to dialogue.

Maybe... but it also keeps Tel Aviv from being ground-zero when one of those nut jobs start salivating at the chance to finally take Israel out.

No Nukes!

 

[oldernwiser]

India, Pakistan.........

Making a point?

Israel isn't the only nuclear nation in the region

They aren't in the same theater as these clowns though.

Although, I really didn't see why India had to go the fissile material route either - they were making an outright threat to Pakistan. Pakistan was pretty much backed into a corner - and lucky for them they had some allies who knew how to build big toys.

This isn't the same issue. Israel has never threatened anyone in the area - at least not directly. And yet, all of Israel's neighbors want it gone by whatever means necessary.

I'm not fooled here.
Iran wants a nuclear deterrent - not against Israel, but as an insurance policy in case the US moves to defend Israel. Their belief is that we would have no choice but to back away if they threatened to light up Tel Aviv. Saddam had the same thought when we took Kuwait away from him - send SCUDs into Israel.

 

[High_Gravity]

Iran: We do not want nuclear weapons

Ali Akbar Salehi is foreign minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Forty-five years ago, the United States sold my country a research reactor as well as weapons-grade uranium as its fuel. Not long afterward, America agreed to help Iran set up the full nuclear fuel cycle along with atomic power plants. The U.S. argument was that nuclear power would provide for the growing needs of our economy and free our remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals.

That rationale has not changed.

Iran: We do not want nuclear weapons - The Washington Post

Come on Jos, their not going to come out and just say they do want nukes.

 

[oldernwiser]

Iran: We do not want nuclear weapons

Ali Akbar Salehi is foreign minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Forty-five years ago, the United States sold my country a research reactor as well as weapons-grade uranium as its fuel. Not long afterward, America agreed to help Iran set up the full nuclear fuel cycle along with atomic power plants. The U.S. argument was that nuclear power would provide for the growing needs of our economy and free our remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals.

That rationale has not changed.

Iran: We do not want nuclear weapons - The Washington Post

Come on Jos, their not going to come out and just say they do want nukes.

No they are not.
What they will do is to use their propaganda machine to make their POV sound so sweet and reasonable and gently explain to us why ours is soooo unreasonable and unjustified.

Beware of the pat on the back...