Originally posted by namehere
subz but doesn't irans responses make you not even slightly suspicious, especially denying their own ally, not to mention what the IAEA has stated
about iran hiding their program for years?
The IAEA reports all say there is no evidence to suggest a nuclear weapons program. The closest the American's got to any substantiating report from
the IAEA was the use of the term "inconclusive".
With respects to Iran's rhetoric of late, yes it is unacceptable and inflammatory, but that does not equate to impending Iranian nuclear attack. Just
take a look at the North Koreans, the have one of the kookiest unelected leaders, starving and highly uneducated population and a communist
government. They also have nuclear weapons and have not used them.
Even if Iran's determination to gain nuclear weapons was a given, which it most certainly isn't at this juncture, then history definitely leans
towards their use as purely defensive. We all know that the use of nuclear weapons is confined to the United States acting against Japan at the end of
WW2. Since then the amount of nuclear weapons and nuclear armed countries, both friends and bitter enemies of the United States, has increased in many
orders of magnitude. But we still have never had a nuclear weapon fired in anger since then. Is this simply because every leader of every country
that's ever had nuclear weapons was sane, rational and never provoked?
There were so many times where logic would of demanded that nuclear weapons would of been used. Korean War, Vietnam War, Cuban Missile Crisis and the
fall of the USSR. All these immensely tense and dangerous times and not a single nuclear weapon ever fired. This isn't coincidence, it stems from the
simple and famous concept of mutually assured destruction.
The situation of Iran using nuclear weapons isn't even as favourable, odds wise, as MAD! At least the USSR could of derived some hope from knowing it
had the means to destroy the United States a couple of times over. What does Iran have? It could at best make a couple of nuclear warheads before the
jig would be up. It would have to deny IAEA inspections months before it developed nuclear weapons. It would just be too hard to hide this activity
from the IAEA and still allow inspections.
When they'd deny inspections the World would know they are up to no good. Game over Iran. But for the time being lets assume they some how managed to
produce a nuclear weapon without tipping their hand with the IAEA. They have no ICBM's to speak of. They could not reach the USA in their wildest
dreams. They could launch a nuke or two at Israel, not enough to wipe them out but enough to seal the complete and utter destruction of the Iranian
nation. Where is the benefit of that? I cant see any and although Iranian mullahs seem to us to be harsh and fundamental zealots they are not suicidal
If the Iranians truly are going for nuclear weapons, which I wont say I totally don't believe possible, the worst I can envisage is a repeat of the
North Korea. They would use their nuclear arms as a deterrent to attack and provocation from their neighbours and the United States. Every other
country since the bomb fell on Nagasaki has used nuclear weapons this way. I find it too much to stomach that we're expected to believe two big
assumptions: 1) Iran is actually going for nuclear weapons in spite of the condemnation, self-throat cutting and bridge-burning it would be for them,
and 2) that they would be the first country in history to initiate a conflict with nuclear weapons.