Nuclear weapons passe, says Iran's president Ahmadinejad

Nuclear weapons passe, says Iran's president Ahmadinejad

www.nydailynews.com

Inranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thinks nuclear bombs are just so ... yesterday.

"Nuclear bombs belong to the 20th century," the Iranian strongman told NBC News anchor Brian Williams. "We are living in a new century."

The verbose - some might say obtuse - Ahmadinejad did not explain what he thought the new weapon of choice should be.

But he argued that nuclear weapons have little strategic value today, and that Iran was open to a more "positive" relationship with the U.S. amid signs that the Bush administration is pursuing a thaw in diplomatic relations.

(visit the link for the full news article)

So... this can be taken one of three ways. Either he's saying that a weapon of mass destruction isn't an appropriate tool to use in this day and age, some form of WMD other than a nuke is more effective and destructive, or he's simply using reverse psychology and lying through his teeth.

I tend to believe it's a combination of the 3. I do believe that he has no desire to actually use a nuke in battle because he has to know the instant he does such a thing his country will no longer exist. However, there are many within Iran (including Khameni) who I believe are salivating over the idea of nuking Israel or America.

Thoughts?

www.nydailynews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

He could just be feeling the pressure of that 2 week deadline Washington gave him to cut out the enrichment.

But there's a forth way you can look at this...

He's actually telling the truth.
He doesn't want to build nukes and he hasn't been doing so all along.

I know a lot of people here will jump to a conclusion something along the lines of:
"Ooh now Ahmadinejad says he doesn't want to develop weapons, he's a clever cookie this towel head... he's using reverse psychology, quick fry Iran before he secretly parks a Van outside the White house with a nuke in it!"
Etc....

But the fact is Iran has far more pressing reasons to develop Nuclear Power other than attacking the US or Israel:

1. Iran is a signatory of the NPT and has a legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under that treaty which the US is also part of.

2. Iran's population has more than doubled in 20 years.

3. The country CANNOT refine it's own oil supplies and has to rely on imported Oil products for energy supplies.

4. Iran burns fossil fuels from it's oil reserves in huge amounts for electrical generation which is not only incredibly inefficient but is polluting their environment.

5. Poverty is a major issue for the working class in Iran. Many cannot afford the rising energy costs.
America isn't the only one feeling the increasing cost of living.

6. Iran's Oil Fields are being depleted by 2 or 3% per year.

7. Nuclear Power has incredibly minuscule operating costs compared to other methods of electrical generation.

8. Iran has huge reserves of Uranium Ore which would make the costs of fuelling civilian Nuclear Plants quite low.

9. Israel, India, and Pakistan all have nuclear weapons.
Nations which are currently engaged in low intensity conflicts and have actually threatened to use Nuclear Weapons in the past.
Why the double standard with Iran?

Give the dude a friggin' break people. Don't be so hawkish.

The guy has a PhD, he's actually completed a degree at a university unlike Bush has.

He's not suicidal. He's just outspoken.
He knows full well, if word ever got out Iran was behind some Nuclear terrorist attack or if he just decided to let rip a ICBM at Israel, his country would be smouldering a few minutes later.

What would this achieve for him?
"Ahh yess I finally hit back at the US! At the cost of millions of my countrymen and my homeland being turned into vapors."

He is either lying or he has something even more destructive in mind.

People today have an idea stuck in their minds that if a country such as Iran lunch a nuke at the US then Iran would be turned into glass, or a parking lot something of that nature. It's just not true due to one simple matter which also happens to be the reason why countries like the US, China and Russia can have nuclear weapons and countries like Iran and North Korea can't.

The use of nuclear weapons is a last resort measure. In reality, the US could have a major city wiped out and still wouldn't use nuclear weapons. The US has the power and capability to retaliate on an equal level without the use of nuclear weapons. We could send a carrier fleet into the area and launch air attacks for weeks hitting hostile targets. That's without having a soldier step foot on the ground. That's just one option.

Now, put North Korea or Iran into the same situation and they are going to be reaching for that little red button a little faster than a more established country.

reply to post by Styki


I believe you are wrong depending on who our president at the time is. If a US city was nuked and our president didn't retalliate in kind by vitrifying whatever country had carried out the act, I'd suspect shenanigans and lose total confidence in said president. If we were nuked by, say, Iran, the problem isn't "what will Iran do next" it's "who's paying very close attention to guage our response?" If we responded to a nuking like we did to Afghanistan and the Taliban following 9/11, you'd best believe the major nuclear powers of the world would raise both eyebrows and think "Damn, mutually assured destruction is off the table... let's think this one over." If, however, we responded by launching a warhead right into downtown Tehran, the rest of the world would freak the hell out, but they'd also recognize that America wasn't about to play games.

We're still the #1 nuclear "threat" in the world today and barring a seriously dumb move by a liberal jagoff president, we will remain in that position for decades to come. As long as there's the belief that we will use those nukes in response to any nuke that comes our way, we won't have a nuclear war on our horizon.

Iran is building nukes by my belief.To much evidence out that supports thats his plan.Iran been this whole time without nuclear energy and just now wants to start using it.Its all bull$%^#.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


I have to agree with you there, like the US would stand by and think "Now what's the most diplomatic means to respond to this" while a Nuclear Attack was launched on it's citizens with a Republican at the helm.

I just can't see that happening....

Nor would they give two sugars what the rest of the world perceived their actions as, a nuclear attack on US soil would evoke a tidal wave of military action right up the tail pipe of whoever authorised said attack.

Either Tehran, Esfahan, Shiraz or Meshad would turn into a big, smouldering car lot.

Btw... "Liberal Jackoff President"... ahaha I couldn't stop laughing.

reply to post by Styki

The use of nuclear weapons is a last resort measure.

Might want to review the US Tactical Nuclear Playbook before you making that call.

Nuclear first strikes are still authorised under the right circumstances.

Not to say Washington is going to reach for the Nuclear briefcase anytime they get a little stressed out but it is far from being a last resort measure in America's arsenal.

It's primary deterrent force relies on it's ability to willingly to willingly use it's huge nuclear arsenal as an offensive measure. (Eg: Hiroshima/Nagasaki)

I vary well could be wrong. However, I believe people overestimate the power of a nuclear weapon. It is one weapon that is highly destructive, but the loss of civilian life is also high. I think the importance of a nuclear weapon is the shock and awe aspect of it. Which is great. But it all depends on the situation. If there was a possibility of another nuclear strike I would chose to use the option of taking out the missile and possible missile sites using non nuclear weapons. Although, if the shock and awe is what your going for a combination or the two would be just as effective.

I personally would chose not to use nuclear weapons because we would have the option and not using them would make us look oh so great. I would make sure the result would be the same, if not more devastating to that nations government without the whole negative image of the nuclear aspect.

But still, in the end we have the option of retaliating in multiple different ways were as a country who dose not have that power can't and would be left with using their nukes.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira

3. The country CANNOT refine it's own oil supplies and has to rely on imported Oil products for energy supplies.

I've always wondered why Iran doesn't have enough refineries for its own needs.

It's not because they wouldn't know how to build one, it can't be because they don't have the raw materials to build a refinery, and I'm sure the country has enough money to build one.

So, having so much oil right in their own backyard, why haven't they built more refineries?

Just doesn't make much sense to me.

[edit on 7/30/2008 by Keyhole]

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Might want to review the US Tactical Nuclear Playbook before you making that call.

Nuclear first strikes are still authorised under the right circumstances.

Not to say Washington is going to reach for the Nuclear briefcase anytime they get a little stressed out but it is far from being a last resort measure in America's arsenal.

It's primary deterrent force relies on it's ability to willingly to willingly use it's huge nuclear arsenal as an offensive measure. (Eg: Hiroshima/Nagasaki)

I stand by the last resort comment. When I say that I in no way mean that we must first be launched on. I realize this leaves a lot of gray area. I place my trust in a good leader of the US to take all facts into consideration before using nuclear weapons. However, I have lost faith in the American people to elect that good leader into office.

I have no evidence, just a feeling.

When I watch the news and see snippets of Ahmadinejad, something tells me he isnt a bad guy. I cant explain it, but i try and look to see if evil exists within him but I honestly dont think he is interested in causing WW3. Its Bush and Dick that scare me.

I dont think Iran (even if they wanted too) would be so stupid to even think of using an Atomic Weapon against any country because they know the USA will deliver one straight back with probably a couple from Gordon Brown....If that happened then that would be the end of Iran. Simple

Evil or not Evil - who would seriously want to do that to their own country? (except you know who)

The Godfather of Conspira - excellent post. A Star for you.

[edit on 30-7-2008 by davidifty]

Perhaps a weapon so destructive is upon us that the Mighty American soldiers and generals quake in their boots in fear of it.
that weapon will revolutionize war fare for all time
the weapon is called







Peace!

Peace! Just the thought sends a cold chill down my back.


Something happened. At some point in time I gave up hope. I can't see the world coming to peace just like a lot of people on this board can't see Obama being a good president. Rough comparison, I know. But that's honestly what it feels like.

Peace would be a dream come true. But for now that dream is going to stay a dream. At this point I think peace in this world would be an illusion. Not to say that it can't come or even wont come but we are just not ready yet. I believe to buy into the illusion before we are ready is a grave mistake. Because we all have to be ready for peace on the inside before we can have it on the outside.

"The guy has a PhD, he's actually completed a degree at a university unlike Bush has. "
Oh yes.....hrmmm.....a PhD in what???
A PhD in Jihad from the Islamic institute of Allah Akbaring?
Hes publicly stated he will make nuclear weapons, and destroy Israel.
Hes publicly said it.In front of the tv cameras.Go look on al jazeera allah akbar channel.

nuclear weapons have always meant Mutual Assured Destruction. they are white elephants. no one WANTS to use nukes. the repercussions are unfathomable.

info war is the war of the 'future', and it's being fought right here.

Along with that PhD thing. A PhD doesn't mean anything. So the guy has read some book's, took a few tests, wrote a few papers. Where did that get him? It got him in front of a bunch of US college students trying to tell them that the Holocaust didn't even happen.

What you know dose not define who you are. I'm not saying Bush is the greatest person on the world but I wouldn't even use great to define this guy.

Ten bucks he is developing Scalar weapons with Russia's help. Rumor is that Russia is 10-15 years ahead of the US in the developement of Scalar weapons. These types of weapons would make nukes seem like a stroll in the park...

reply to post by Interestinggg

Oh yes.....hrmmm.....a PhD in what???
A PhD in Jihad from the Islamic institute of Allah Akbaring?

ha..... ha.... ha....

No. He has a PhD in Civil Engineering, he was also a university lecturer for a long period of time.

Hes publicly stated he will make nuclear weapons, and destroy Israel.
Hes publicly said it.In front of the tv cameras.

He's NEVER explicitly stated he will make Nuclear Weapons, please just Google this before you go spouting some crap like that.

As for Israel I assume your talking about the famous "Wiped off the Map" speech?

One word: DE-BUNKED!
www.nytimes.com...
edition.cnn.com...

reply to post by Styki

Along with that PhD thing. A PhD doesn't mean anything. So the guy has read some book's, took a few tests, wrote a few papers.

Yes I realise.

The point I was trying to make is, he's a rational, logical person too.
He's educated and contrary to what the media want you to think he's not some rabid towel head foaming at the mouth for war as the media portray him.

I think he realises the most, even considering deploying Nuclear weapons against the US or an ally is a suicidal idea.

First of all, Ahmadinejad is powerless. He is a mere figurehead. The mullahs rule Iran and set policy. A-jad is just sent out onto the world stage as a barking dog on occasion.

Second, the question of whether Iran's intentions are honorable could be answered very simply - open and free access to inspectors. One must question their refusal to allow this.

Finally, Iran's only reason for wanting a nuke is to even the field against Israel. There is no way they want to mix it up with the US. Their hatred for Israel is almost on a par with their desire for survival.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by Interestinggg

 

Oh yes.....hrmmm.....a PhD in what???
A PhD in Jihad from the Islamic institute of Allah Akbaring?

ha..... ha.... ha....

No. He has a PhD in Civil Engineering, he was also a university lecturer for a long period of time

Oh civil engineering cool.
So that would make him rather skilled and qualified at designing things like buildings and bridges and an expert on how to BLOW THEM UP!
I think Iran chose the wrong guy to be a leader, because being a Civil engineer would not make him an expert at diplomacy and negotiations.
No doubt thats why they are having the current problems.
Oh no thats right wait, they didn't choose him did they?
He chose himself.No Allah chose him didn't he?
Or was it Mohamed did he come back to life and choose him?