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.

 

Does Iran Need-Deserve the Nuclear Bomb?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Bush mentioned Iraq and Iran in the axis of evil speech. Well Iraq is Iran’s neighbour and now look at where it is.
Sure we say to the Iranians "get rid of your WMD's and we won't harm you" heard this before anyone?
I think Iran would be stupid to get rid of its WMD's and foolish not to seek a nuclear bomb (so be it very carefully).
And what's Israel going to do? If Israeli jets did take off it would be an act of war, not to mention the next Chernobyl style power station disaster.
Also Iran already has biological weapons and has done for ages. These equal and even exceed the killing power of nuclear bombs but are less good in military terms. Point is: are they selling anthrax for "buy one kilo and get another free"? I don't think so.
Surely Iran is one of the least likely countries to use Nuclear weapons because no matter whom takes over it will never make sense? (unless of course Bush decides to "liberate" the place).
The sooner Iran has nukes the sooner we can stop worrying about the place being invaded. After all troop deaths might have dented Bush's support in Iraq, but they would eliminate it in Iran.

Moral of the story is don't threaten countries; and they don't need to arm themselves, don't brake promises of honouring unilateral disbarment; and then expect to be trusted. Right or wrong?
Since we have done both of those things isn't Iran right to seek the bomb? After all say they cooperate there are plenty of other potential reasons for invading them. Could this be as easy as blaming them for the next terrorist outrage? I mean what happens if a few fanatics really do come from their country? How does the Iranian state count on proving its innocence against an angry world seeking “justice”?
Question is: Would questions like these be such a pressing issue for the Iranians if they already had the bomb? Are they real enough questions to justify obtaining it?

Nobody has ever invaded a nuclear power. Could the Iranians count on the Americans being no different? Surely they would have to do more than just posses one?


[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]




posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Hmmm interesting thoughts. I thought of the following schoolyard confrontation...


Bully says : If you pick up that stick I'm gonna kick your butt, but I might kick your butt anyway cuz I want your lunch money.

So should the victim pick up that stick?



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Thanks for responding?
Well what i'm saying is that i would pick up that stick. Espically if he might take my lunch money anyway.
Would'nt you?
But its not a question of lunch money just national survival.

P.S Sorry about all the editing since i posted this. I know its very bad sport which is why i just changed the title thats all. I never change the body of my posts apart from to correct spelling, and add a word that is acturally MISSING (often happens when i write).

Really annoyed about the level of responses i thought this was good grounds for a good debate. Or does everyone agree with me? Never usually happens. Respond!!!



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 09:36 PM
link   
The nuclear bomb is a technology that should only be in that hands of those who we know won't give warheads to terrorist organizations. Iran is not one of those nations. After all several of their leaders were heavily involved in the Tehran hostage situation, many believe the current president was one of them. Are those the kind of people you consider trustworthy enough to have the power to annilate a city with one bomb?



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   
What i'm saying is that there is talk of having war with Iran because it wants the nuclear bomb. I don't think Iran would give the nuclear bomb to anyone after it obtained it.
Not just because of war if they do but because we could blockade them with sanctions Iraqi style. This would not be a good thing for any leader, and it would be the very least we could do against them.

Rember even Saddam complied with the sanctions (at least as far as acturally getting rid of his WMD's was concerned). We just forget to lift them. So i believe the very threat of this sort of action would prevent Iran from spreading the nuke.

But yeah of course your right to think we can never tell what will happen.

I just think that looking from the Iranian point of view the nuclear bomb makes a lot of sence for all the reasons in the original post. Do you agree?



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Why not ?

[edit on 14-7-2005 by Sand_man]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   
From an Iranian stance yes it does make sense, especially to the public. However their goverment is run by a bunch of America haters who have no expirience with such a weapon.

At least with the US we invented the things and we've had them since WWII.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
I have a big problem with reducing this debate to a question of countries' "rights", or a form of moral equivalence. On the surface, its hard to argue against, "Well, other countries have them, why not Iran?" and "Gee, maybe we're not really threatening them, but they think we are, so don't they have a right to defend themselves?"

The problem is that Iran is a proven state sponsor of terrorism. Its leadership is constantly leading the chant "Death to the great Satan!" Iran is quite blunt about erasing Israel from the face of the Earth. We have not seen this behaviour from any one of the world's current nuclear powers.

In the face of this kind of proven, irrational aggression, I believe it is the rest of the world that is defending itself by denying Iran the nuclear bomb. The threat is all too real that they may use them, either by providing them to terrorists, or by lobbing them at Israel, or even in some other unforeseen way, as its insane religious leaders willingly martyr their own people.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78

At least with the US we invented the things and we've had them since WWII.


Hmm great answer, did US science ?, no thank project paperclip. The Nuclear Bomb should be banned world wide end of question. As long as human's run government's NONE of them can be trusted with such great power.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Nobody has ever invaded a nuclear power. Could the Iranians count on the Americans being no different? Surely they would have to do more than just posses one?


there was a time when some nations had missiles while the rest did not (just like the N bomb situation we have now)...

today, almost every nation has missiles and we still have wars and invasions...such is our nature...therefore, even when almost all nations have N bombs (which i believe will happen but hopefully its a long time away), invasions will still occur imo...


Originally posted by AlexofSkye
In the face of this kind of proven, irrational aggression, I believe it is the rest of the world that is defending itself by denying Iran the nuclear bomb...


instead of denying iran the N bomb, what if the rest of the world wants the few nations that have the N bomb to get rid of them? why? coz the rest of the world thats not involved in the conflict would be affected when its launched...

so would you relinquish the N bomb and use only conventional weapons?

such is our nature...



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Oh the labyrynth of the English language. I am reading your title and it can be taken two ways. From the context of your paragraph, I understand what you meant to ask, but I am going to answer the flipside:

Once they have one of their own, absolutely- the first time they even twitch their trigger finger.

It would be funny it it wasn't absolutely true.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Personally I don't think it's such a bright idea to have the current nuke holders give up their nukes (cept N. Korea). Simply because a lot of them would immediatly be invaded if they didn't have that shield of protection. Not to mention the fact that it would give way for major powers to go to war with eachother.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   
First off, your position on Isreal is all wrong. They can and WILL attack Irans nuclear sight, and there will be ZERO consequences.

They have done it before, and can do it again.

Secondly, any person who believes that the current government in Iran should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons is simply dumb. You are talking about a country which has LITERALLY and PUBLICALLY stated that they wish for 'the total destruction of Isreal'.

They also have links to just about every western hating Islamic terrorist group in the world.

I hope they try. I really do. Once they are caught and proven to be trying to, the US will come in and clean house. It will be ugly, but much better for the world in the long run.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Personally I don't think it's such a bright idea to have the current nuke holders give up their nukes (cept N. Korea). Simply because a lot of them would immediatly be invaded if they didn't have that shield of protection. Not to mention the fact that it would give way for major powers to go to war with eachother.


am i reading this right? youre saying no one except n korea should have nukes?

if youre actually saying that...how does that help anything...next thing you know, n korea will be threatening everyone and its back to square one.


Originally posted by American Mad Man
...I hope they try. I really do. Once they are caught and proven to be trying to, the US will come in and clean house. It will be ugly, but much better for the world in the long run.


personally, i dont really give a damn anymore if israel / iran / palestinians decide to kill one another...if they cant learn to live in peace they should both suffer...and they are...

since time immemorial...its palestinian stone throwing kids being killed by israeli troops...its innocent israelis being killed by palestinian suicide bombers...etc etc etc etc

and american m m, if you want to send more of your sons and daughters to war thats fine with me...just like vietnam, iraq...thanks for keeping the peace and ill be watching the developments on cnn...



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Letting Iran have and produce nuclear weapons is like giving a young kid some matches and gasoline. Knowing if you tell them they are going to get burnt if they mix the two, they must find out for themselves. This is what the international coummunity is trying to prevent. Some way and somehow they are going to use them if their backs are up against the wall or they do not get something they want by peacefull means;
sort of like Kim il Jong nothing but a big bully in the play yard but the whole yard is filled with millions of people.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Iran MUST have nuclear weapons and in all liklyhood they have alreay developed them and have them weaponized on the Shahab3 missile. Don't tell me that a country that manufactures it's own helicopters and figher planes, and has numerous nuclear facilities not to mention the fact they imported enriched uranium from Pakistan and maybe NKorea, don't tell me that this country hasn't already assembled at least some simple 'gun-type' nukes. No country like Iran can just sit there and let the Zionists and the Americans point a gun to their head..they must have a deterent..Just because they give rockets to hezbollah and lend some support to hamas doesn't mean they are going to give hamas a nuke-thats absurd..many countries support guerilla groups, the US has always done it, I think it's just racism that you assume that because they are 'rag-heads' they are going to give a guerilla group a nuke.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by FuGGer
am i reading this right? youre saying no one except n korea should have nukes?

if youre actually saying that...how does that help anything...next thing you know, n korea will be threatening everyone and its back to square one.


I'm sorry, I must not have properly posted my opinion on the matter. What I meant was that North Korea is the only current nuke holder that should give up their nukes. I apologize for the misunderstanding.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   
oh ok...no need for apologies dude
...doubt nkorea will be willing to give up their nukes if no one else does tho...cheers



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Book Review Essay
Gregory F. Treverton
From Foreign Affairs Spring 1989

Danger and Survival: Choices About the Bomb in the First Fifty Years. McGeorge Bundy. New York: Random House, 1988, 735 pp. $24.95

"A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought." The words are Ronald Reagan's. While McGeorge Bundy, like many others, finds Reagan's thinking about nuclear weapons muddy and his administration's public presentation of nuclear reality disgraceful, this particular sentence is crystal clear. It echoes the conclusion of the only person ever to authorize a nuclear strike, Harry Truman: "Starting an atomic war is totally unthinkable for rational men."

Comment: I think books like this and statements such as Ronald Reagan made are just as valid today. Accordingly all peaceful means must apply over and above any preemptive doctrine as the first order.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
The nuclear bomb is a technology that should only be in that hands of those who we know won't give warheads to terrorist organizations. Iran is not one of those nations. After all several of their leaders were heavily involved in the Tehran hostage situation, many believe the current president was one of them. Are those the kind of people you consider trustworthy enough to have the power to annilate a city with one bomb?


I have jsut one word for you.. esp. if you're american..

Pakistan??!!

There's proof of proliferation by pakistan and well the US ignorance towards this is purely hypocritical..

ANd the stickand bully analogy is "oh soo apt".. Kudos to whoever compared the Iran conundrum with it..




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join