It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Iran manufacture a nuclear deterrence device ?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2005 @ 10:58 PM
link   
As the mainstream media discussion about Iran intentionally left this question out, i'm asking it here. After decades of threats, trade sanctions and military aggressions against the islamic republic of Iran performed by the United States and it's "allies", i think it is natural for Iran to equip itself with a nuclear device, in order to deter the usual suspects from orchestrating even more bloodshed and instability in the region. What do you think ?




Forcing Iran into a Nuclear Corner
Why Are Nukes OK for You, But Not for Us?

By BRIAN CLOUGHLEY

Imagine you are leader of a nation with a population of 69 million, and one fifth the size of the US. You have massive oil and gas deposits but your country is otherwise appallingly poor, being over 70 per cent desert that cannot be irrigated because there are few water sources. Your armed forces are equipped with antique tanks and airplanes that would be suitable as memorials to your dead after your country has been invaded, which you have reason to believe may be its fate.

The reason for your belief is that you are surrounded by ten countries that host enormous military bases occupied by hundreds of thousands of troops and hundreds of strike aircraft belonging to a power whose leader calls you "evil" and wants to overthrow you. The countries with which you trade have been warned of punishment for doing so, and the leader of the power that threatens you has twenty major warships, including aircraft carriers, aggressively patrolling your shores and daring you to react to their coat-trailing forays at the edge of your territorial waters. Each of his carriers holds between 10 and 30 nuclear bombs and their scores of strike aircraft are at a moment's notice to bombard your country with them or with "conventional" ordnance, which no doubt takes some weight off your mind. Further, other surface ships and three of that power's submarines in your region can at a moment's notice rain hundreds of cruise missiles upon you, as can its dozens of strategic nuclear bombers based thousands of miles away.

Your entire country is subject to the most sophisticated electronic spying operations ever conceived and operated by mankind. Your borders are ceaselessly patrolled by drones and manned aircraft that are ready to neutralize your air defense radars before you are attacked. All your codes have been broken and every electronic communication your government makes is intercepted.

The country whose leader has threatened you has 7,088 nuclear weapons, an unknown number of which are poised to wipe out your cities, and has a paid ally which also has a substantial nuclear arsenal. This ally is prepared and indeed most anxious to attack you.

In addition to calling you "evil", the leader of the country that threatens you says you must be punished because you "pursue weapons of mass destruction". (His own 7,088 nuclear bombs and warheads are not, of course, "weapons of mass destruction".) In February he declared you to be "the world's primary state sponsor of terror" which, although on a par with the lying implication that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 (still believed by millions of brainwashed dolts), is evidence of more than slight antagonism. You are probably a trifle disturbed about the rhetoric, but rather more worried about the physical evidence of a massive build-up of assault forces surrounding you from all points of the compass. The religious extremists and bigots in the government of the country whose leader calls you "evil" detest you and everything you stand for. They broadcast propaganda against you and admire fundamentalist Christian generals who hold positions of great influence and have publicly despised and reviled your religion.

You are, in fact, up # creek without a paddle, but for one thing: You have the capability to produce nuclear weapons that could prevent your enemy from attacking you, because if it does, you would have a means of striking back. Your declared and relentless enemy has announced it will do everything in its power to stop you having nuclear weapons.

What do you do?


www.counterpunch.com...



[edit on 1-6-2005 by Moretti]




posted on May, 31 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   
It bothers me little if Iran have nukes.
Allowing them to have a nuclear programme that can be monitored and out in the open, even if it's to produce a nuclear weapon would be better than forcing them to do it underground and in spite of the world.

They will NEVER use a nuke unsuspectingly or in a terrorist manner, it would spell the end of Iran as they know it, therefor, they want a defense.

If Isreal can have hundreds of them and if the US can have thousands of them while being the only country to have ever used them, why worry about Iran having one? Only because it means it's a road block for the US and Isreals dominance plans, making it even more valid for Iran to seek a defensive measure.

They won't end up in Terrorists hands or used in any offensive way if they are allowed to have a nuke programme that is monitored and respected by the countries that have nukes and promote their safety record.

Of course, if you only believe the propaganda about Iran, then you'll believe that they will be making nukes on a production line and selling them to various terrorists who are waiting in line with their wheelbarrow.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Considering that Israel has "hundreds of them" as you say, I would focus a tiny bit on the fact that they haven't used them.

If you support Iran having them, with a government that is unstable and has a habit of making rash decisions, good luck. I'm glad I don't live in that area...



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
Considering that Israel has "hundreds of them" as you say, I would focus a tiny bit on the fact that they haven't used them.

If you support Iran having them, with a government that is unstable and has a habit of making rash decisions, good luck. I'm glad I don't live in that area...


You should edit your post, as you have inadvertently interverted Iran and Israel in what you said.


[edit on 1-6-2005 by Moretti]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
Considering that Israel has "hundreds of them" as you say, I would focus a tiny bit on the fact that they haven't used them.

If you support Iran having them, with a government that is unstable and has a habit of making rash decisions, good luck. I'm glad I don't live in that area...


Well, if it's just going to come down to who is the 'most unstable', the US wins that vote from me. Iran hasn't invaded anyone recently via a decision that was rushed and unstable to begin with, plus Iran doesn't have a history of using nukes like the US does, Iran isn't developing new nuclear weapons while claiming WMDs are evil etc etc.

Isreal haven't used their hundreds of nukes - good, so they shouldn't but why does that mean Iran shouldn't have a defense against those hundred nukes and make sure Isreal have even less reason to use them?

Wouldn't you want a defense? Iran wouldn't be any more likely to use it either, it's pure conjecture to assume they would no matter what you want to believe about that country.

I'm sure this debate will turn into a 'Iran vs US morals' slugfest.
Conservatives will argue Iran is 'unstable' and a bunch of crazy 'terrorists' while the rest try to point out that every claim that is made can be equalled or outdone by the USA's own lack of morals and respect for human rights, which yet again won't be accepted by the patriots because the US is above the law or the USA's actions don't mimic Hitler or Stalin therfore are not the worst things that could happen to said 'Iranian Terrorists'.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Shroud, firstly, by turning this into an Israel vs. Iran issue you are completely missing the point, as do many people.

If your belief is that Iran should have nukes simply because Israel does, and maybe one day Israel might attack them, well then hey what the hell! Let's give Monaco nukes in case one day Trinidad decides to get wise with them.

This is HORRIBLE POLICY! Arming countries to make things even handed in potential future conflicts. Fearsome. Worse than anything Bush and Co. have done. That's reality. This would result in nothing but a really quick way to end the world. They don't like each other, make sure both sides have nukes. That's not deterrence, that's death. Different concepts.

Moretti: You should refrain from making one line posts that have no substance to them and no intent other than to annoy someone. Considering the facts that 1) Iran doesn't have hundreds of nukes and 2) Israel unlike Iran has not developed a track record to indicate they would fire off a nuke in a blind fury... it becomes apparent to me that there was no purpose in your reply. Do not twist other people's words, especially when it makes no sense to. After seeing numerous other posts of yours, I'm well aware that you're capable of better than this... come on.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by Djarums]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:07 AM
link   
I did not intend to mock you, i was lightheartedly pointing out that what you are saying is rather inverse to what is going on in reality, especially concerning "political stability".



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   
I see...

In that case we'll just have to agree to disagree, because frankly I think Iran would devastate the region in a matter of a few short years if they had functional nuclear missiles, whereas Israel has had these things for years and even while being knocked around with scuds in 91 for a war they did not have even one soldier or piece of equipment fighting, they still showed restraint and didn't even threaten to use them.

Believe me, and have no doubts about this, if there was a conflict in the middle east, and one side started lobbing scuds at a nuclear empowered Iran, they'd all be dead. Can you disagree with that?



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
Shroud, firstly, by turning this into an Israel vs. Iran issue you are completely missing the point, as do many people.

If your belief is that Iran should have nukes simply because Israel does, and maybe one day Israel might attack them, well then hey what the hell! Let's give Monaco nukes in case one day Trinidad decides to get wise with them.

This is HORRIBLE POLICY! Arming countries to make things even handed in potential future conflicts. Fearsome. Worse than anything Bush and Co. have done. That's reality. This would result in nothing but a really quick way to end the world. They don't like each other, make sure both sides have nukes. That's not deterrence, that's death. Different concepts.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by Djarums]


What i'm saying is, i don't care if Iran have nukes, give them to everyone, who gives a flying f--k. Hand them out on the streets, sell them at local wallmart! Lets all stockpile Nukes, let every country have 7,000 nukes like America has. Even the playing field a bit. Who cares??

Why should anyone be worried about other countries having nukes? Oooo they might use them on the US?? God no!! Everyone knows that only the US are allowed to use nukes!

Fact is, US policy is far more threatening than anything else facing this worlds future. If you don't agree the US has a globally threatening policy via military dominance, then you won't be able to accept anything that puts a country in a position to equal or stand strong against US threats.

I think it's a pointless debate anyway and only more excuses for the US to invade Iran which will happen before December, nukes or no nukes.

I'm not worried in the slightest of a world threatened by Nukes and Terrorsits because i don't believe such a world would ever exsist anyway. What i do think is a reality, is a world in which 'peace, freedom and liberties' are twisted and used as a pretext for military envasions which result in loss of liberties and freedoms until it becomes painfully obvious, that was the plan all along.
Nukes will only ever be an excuse, they have way too much responsability and repercussions to be used for anything other than a last ditch final defense.

In the last 5 years, i've seen more damage done to the world at the hands of America's foreign policy than i have from any other country. That's the real threat to the world if this continues.

Pakistan are developing nukes because India has them, but wait, Pakistan are US allies! No threat there then for anyone obviously, foget that they have been fighting for centuries because it doesn't concern US policy just yet, they are too busy in the Middle East where their current business dealings are.

If everyone has 1 nuke, then no one will use them. Simple. Let's share Americas's stockpile amonst the rest of the world shall we??



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:38 AM
link   
If Iran Has/Trying to Aquire "Nuclear Devices" America And The International Community atleast NATO will strike them like a bolt of lighting! "Operation LightingStrike" Pre-Emptive/Tactical/Nuclearbomb or launch couple M.O.A.B Bombs on the High Priority Targets.

Link to M.O.A.B Bomb www.cnn.com...


[edit on 1-6-2005 by Jamie6661986]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   
I realy dont care anymore tbh, i say we let iran have the nukes, let em do whatever they want, cause its going to be funny as hell when they use them, and then the left will blame bush because he didnt do something to stop it when he had the chance...




Mod Edit to remove highly inflammatory remark not necessary to establish the member's point of view.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by Djarums]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Jamie...


I think that is precisely what most of us here would prefer NOT to happen...



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
Shroud, firstly, by turning this into an Israel vs. Iran issue you are completely missing the point, as do many people.


You did so yourself in your previous post. It is obvious that Iran is the regional superpower that most openly supports the containment of israeli expansionist tendencies and racialist practices.


If your belief is that Iran should have nukes simply because Israel does, and maybe one day Israel might attack them, well then hey what the hell! Let's give Monaco nukes in case one day Trinidad decides to get wise with them.

This is HORRIBLE POLICY! Arming countries to make things even handed in potential future conflicts. Fearsome. Worse than anything Bush and Co. have done. That's reality. This would result in nothing but a really quick way to end the world. They don't like each other, make sure both sides have nukes. That's not deterrence, that's death. Different concepts.


No, actually this is derived from the policy concept of "balance of powers", which is the only multilpolar security concept in political realism. Menaces have to be credibly met with countermenaces in order to ensure peaceful evolution. Disproportionate differences in military capacity result in a higher probability of war (ex: Hitler attacks Poland, USSR engulfs border states, US nukes Japan, China engulfs Tibet, Saddam attacks Koweit , Bush attacks Iraq ), while balance in military capacity tends to avert it (US/USSR, Pakistan/India, Australia/Indonesia)


[edit on 1-6-2005 by Moretti]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   

No, actually this is derived from the policy concept of "balance of powers"


It's actually the final step before extinction.

I wonder who will take over for us the day after we give all these nutcases nukes.

Amazing how some people can understand the problem these weapons present and say they're bad, but on the other hand advocate for a suicidal & murderous "balance of powers" plan to give the destructive capability to more and more people.

You are aware that the more people you give the car keys to the better your chances are of finding the drunk guy right?


Menaces have to be credibly met with countermenaces in order to ensure peaceful evolution.


Are you sure? Are you sure enough to risk the world on this idea? You're missing a piece of the puzzle. One wildcard dictator comes in via military coup... oh yeah... the presidential palace comes with a control panel that lets me blow up people. Nice.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by Djarums]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Let's try it differently:

If i understood your posts (correct me if i'm wrong), you are trying to sell that :

-the possible developement of iranian nuclear deterrence devices is not motivated by proven prior US desire to overthrow the islamic republic of Iran by any means imaginable out of pure financial interest.
-Iran is politically unstable and iranian decisions particularly irresponsible.
-Israel is politically stable and israeli decisions particularly responsible.

I don't know if it's worth going into details, but this is probably the exact opposite of what any honest consideration of facts and history on these points could possibly lead to.



[edit on 1-6-2005 by Moretti]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Djarums,

Here is an idea, if you want to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons why not take away the motivation to do so.

I am opposed to nuclear weapons for anyone, so why not have the US and EU pressure Israel into relinquishing its nuclear arsenal in return for Iran ceasing all nuclear weapons development.

Lets work to make the Middle East nuke free.

You claim that Iran does not need nukes, then surely neither does Israel or the US or the UK or Russia or China.

Lets get real about this. I would have the utmost respect for Bush if he were to make this planet nuclear weapon free by the end of his presidency.

This would be a hell of a legacy.

Cheers

BHR



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Djarums
I see...

In that case we'll just have to agree to disagree, because frankly I think Iran would devastate the region in a matter of a few short years if they had functional nuclear missiles, whereas Israel has had these things for years and even while being knocked around with scuds in 91 for a war they did not have even one soldier or piece of equipment fighting, they still showed restraint and didn't even threaten to use them.

Believe me, and have no doubts about this, if there was a conflict in the middle east, and one side started lobbing scuds at a nuclear empowered Iran, they'd all be dead. Can you disagree with that?


if you were America and somebody started lobbing scuds at you, or shall we say destroy your buildings/infrastructure somehow,
what would/has happened to them do you think?????


Iran||Persia is pacifist why do you think we lost to Islam??????

I suppose it will depend how many Scuds you are talking about!!!!! How many scuds did actually hit actual civilian population/infrastructure in Israel? what do you think would happen if somebody actually started "lobbing" lets say 100 to 200 scuds at Israeli civilian centers????---God Forbid!!!!!!_____





[edit on 1-6-2005 by zurvan]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   
u cant take away the motivation from a country that is intent on the annihalation of Israel. after all they believe the Jews dont belong there. and with a nuke its a lot easier to kill many with one small device than it is to fund terror groups who commit suicide on the victims but is replace by many more babies.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 08:50 AM
link   
The only reason iran is so actively pursuing nukes is to destroy israel,a state they dont even recognize, so noi i dont think iran should have nukes.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
u cant take away the motivation from a country that is intent on the annihalation of Israel. after all they believe the Jews dont belong there. and with a nuke its a lot easier to kill many with one small device than it is to fund terror groups who commit suicide on the victims but is replace by many more babies.



Hey!!!! To Persians, if you go back to history more than just 2000 years. you find that Persians did actively support Israel and recognised it completely. Hell I think even old testimont mentions that. Now you are accussing us(Iranians/Persians) and not the ArabFollower/Originated leaders to be anti Israel????


[edit on 1-6-2005 by zurvan]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join