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.

 

Iran demands...oh forget it this country just won't SHUT UP!!!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Anyone who thinks Iran having nuclear weapons is a good idea is crazy. And no, it is not because I am an American Imperialist. It is because they would use them.

You liberals need to wake up and smell the roses - there is a huge difference between stable countries in Europe and the US having nuclear weapons and a radical middle eastern country.




posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 07:53 PM
link   
You are right. There is a big difference. We have used them and we just about had a nuclear war with the Soviets way back when. The middle east hasn't had that problem. Only us.



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Classic liberal reply. The fact is we saved around a million lives by droping the bomb. Yes, I understand the X hundred thousand dead is still bad, but you know what, too bad. Japan attacked us. Japan would not surrender. So instead of getting all of our guys shot up, we used the bomb.

As for the cold war and almost going to war - almost doesn't count. In fact, both the US and Russia both demonstrated extreme restraint in using nuclear weapons. For instance, the US generals wanted to use nukes in the Korean war - but did we? NO.

The fact is that Iran would use them, and use them freely. They would also be likely to give them to terrorists. Do you think the US would do that? Of course not.

And then you mention that in the middle east there have been no nuclear wars. Yeah - thats because they don't have them. Do you really think that f Iraq or Iran had had them during their little they wouldn't have been used? How about that quick little war against Isreal? Get real dude.

[edit on 13-8-2004 by American Mad Man]



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
As for the cold war and almost going to war - almost doesn't count. In fact, both the US and Russia both demonstrated extreme restraint in using nuclear weapons. For instance, the US generals wanted to use nukes in the Korean war - but did we? NO.

The fact is that Iran would use them, and use them freely. They would also be likely to give them to terrorists. Do you think the US would do that? Of course not.


I wouldn't say the US has used that much restraint.
They have threatened to use Nuclear weapons on numerous occasions.

National Security Archives
Throughout the 1950s, during the Eisenhower administration's "New Look" national security policy, nuclear weapons were deliberately built into the contingency plans. In addition, there were four Sino-American crises during that interval, all of which involved U.S. nuclear threats against China (Korea 1953; Tachen 1954-55; Taiwan Straits 1958; Quemoy/Matsu 1960), plus the Dien Bien Phu crisis of 1954, in which nuclear weapons were brandished by the U.S. secretary of state with language about retaliation "at places and with means of our own choosing," which became known as the doctrine of massive retaliation.



NSA: Jimmy Carter Interview
...So I exhausted all the other means that I had to put restraints on the Soviet Union. One of them was to issue a public statement that if the Soviets did invade either Pakistan or Iran out of Afghanistan, that I would consider this a personal threat the security of the United States of America and I would take whatever action I desired or considered appropriate to respond, and I let it be known that this would not exclude a nuclear reaction.



www.ccc.nps.navy.mil...
On the eve of Operation Desert Storm in January 1991, then-Secretary of State James Baker traveled to Geneva to meet with Iraqi Foreign Secretary Tariq Aziz to convey to the Iraqis that any use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against coalition forces would be met with an overwhelming response. It was widely assumed at the time that this meant that the United States would retaliate with nuclear weapons if Iraq used chemical or biological weapons against the coalition.


I doubt that Iran would do anything more than threaten to retaliate against an invasion or attack rather than initiate an attack on another country.


[edit on 13-8-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:16 PM
link   
If they want nukes why dont we drop one on them
To let iran, a very unstable country have them is insane. They will not heistate to use them, what do they have to lose. Even if it was in the hands of a responsible leader, it will eventually end up in the hands of some crazy terrorist.

[edit on 13-8-2004 by TACHYON]



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TACHYON
If they want nukes why dont we drop one on them


There's one reason the US shouldn't be trusted to have nuclear weapons.
There is such readiness to use them.
Look at how many posts are made on this forum saying that nukes should be dropped on Iran, Iraq, North Korea etc...

[edit on 13-8-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
You are right. There is a big difference. We have used them and we just about had a nuclear war with the Soviets way back when. The middle east hasn't had that problem. Only us.


Yes but we used it intelligenly as a means to DETER nuclear war. Dropping the bombs on Japan actually saved more lives than it coeost, it just seems more because it was faster. We have so many nukes, but do you see us using them right now? NO, but in the event another nation does strike upon us in a nuclear conflagration, they will bet their ass that they will be cleaned off the planet. National Geographic will have to draw new world maps after the US is done removing thier country off the Earth.


[edit on 13-8-2004 by TACHYON]



posted on Aug, 13 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   
i'm still trying to think of who that obnoxious country off the coast of europe is?
if i remember correctly, the united kingdom is part of europe, so it can't be them....

i think you're letting your lack of geopolitical knowledge influence your very ignorant statement.


::edit::

unless of course you're talking about the european continent and not the political entity, then i stand corrected.

as for iran having the technology to create nuclear weapons, i wouldn't say yes.... would you?

[edit on 13-8-2004 by fitch]

[edit on 13-8-2004 by fitch]



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 01:50 AM
link   

There's one reason the US shouldn't be trusted to have nuclear weapons.
There is such readiness to use them.
Look at how many posts are made on this forum saying that nukes should be dropped on Iran, Iraq, North Korea etc...


The US has had nukes for about 60 years and we only used them when we had no other choice. and we had 40 years of nukes being pointed at us like the Cuban missile crisis but again we showed restraint and resolved things diplomatically.

Are you impaired? You use the threads made by members here as if they are American nuclear policy this is idiocy at its highest. How can you say look some Americas on this site want to nuke Iran his means the American government will nuke anyone

Believing that Iran wont use nukes in its military, is like believing the US government when they say UFOs do not exist.


[edit on 15-8-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
The US has had nukes for about 60 years and we only used them when we had no other choice. and we had 40 years of nukes being pointed at us like the Cuban missile crisis but again we showed restraint and resolved things diplomatically.

The US showed restraint because the Soviets had as many nukes as the US did.


Are you impaired? You use the threads made by members here as if they are American nuclear policy this is idiocy at its highest. How can you say look some Americas on this site want to nuke Iran his means the American government will mule anyone


I was using his rant to show him how ridiculous it is for him to say Iran can't be trusted with nuclear weapons while at the same time calling for nukes to be dropped on Iran.
I do think your extremist views are shared by some in the military though.
Look at my post earlier about how many nuclear threats the US has made over the years.
Some as recent as 1991.
There may have been even more threats made that we don't know of yet.

[edit on 14-8-2004 by AceOfBase]



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
you know what, too bad. Japan attacked us. Japan would not surrender. So instead of getting all of our guys shot up, we used the bomb.
[edit on 13-8-2004 by American Mad Man]


What are you saying? We weren't winning or we were unable to beat them? Sounds to me like we had to resort to terrorist tactics to win a war that we were losing. Maybe not losing but certainly not winning hands down. So you would then justify nuking a city just because you don't have the stomach to fight. Why not just nuke a city every time you don't like someone just so you don't have to risk losing a life in a war. Sorry but nuking a city is a losers last resort.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indy
Why not just nuke a city every time you don't like someone just so you don't have to risk losing a life in a war. Sorry but nuking a city is a losers last resort.


Exactly and furthermore the bombs dropped on Japan have just been in revenge for the Pearl Harbour disaster.
The American leadership was pissed and so they took revenge on the looser level.

Anyway, I agree that dropping the bomb saved many more lives than it had cost and we can be thankful to the USA that they helped fighting the 3rd Reich but you can't tell me it was important to nuke more than one city to stop the war!!!
One would have been enough and we all know that. The rest was murder



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Believing that Iran wont use nukes in its military, is like believing the US government when they say UFOs do not exist.


Comments like that are kinda risky
you could label yourself as fool.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Ok people, I'm gonna try to introduce a strange new concept which has you haven't heard about before because it hasn't been governing international relations for hundreds and even thousands of years.

At the strategic level, a nation is always at war- even if at the extreme minimal end of what military authors have dubbed "the force continuum".
In theory, even economics can be considered a close cousin to an arms race, or a form of "cold war". This strengthens the perception and the reality of the fact that nations finding themselves at odds in any way, even over the relative strength of their currencies, are in a type of war.

With this view, nice concepts like sensitivity, gentleness, fairness, non-aggression, etc. equate to a lowering of your guard in the face of a threat. As George Carlin has written (semi-seriously as always) "Pacifism is a nice idea, but it can get you killed".

As a practical matter, it is in every nations interest to build their military and economic means, and it is in the interest of rival nations to limit their military means in almost every case, and almost as often to limit their economic means. Rights have nothing to do with this- the only rules are what you can do, and what you can not do (capability wise).

One key question is: can Iran and a dozen other nations behind them gain nuclear weapons. If yes, can those weapons serve to make them nations of greater influence? If yes, could this be the precursor to a major war between opposing ideologies, or simply over necessary resources? (the answer to all of those but the first one is YES). America is able to determine the answer to that first question though, and must force it upon the world.
Peace in this world generally rests on the domination of the known world by a network of cooperating or issolated powers. Europe has seen the several hundred years of back and forth between England and France. America fought the Spanish to gain a bigger piece of the pie in the lengthy strategic "jump ball" that culminated in WWI. WWI was of course the ultimate example of what happens when nobody is in charge.
Then WWII proved that it only takes 10 or 20 years to lose everything to a nation you thought couldn't hurt you anymore. They ought to have remembered that when they scrapped the SDI.
Last but not least, you can look at Central Africa. They've had their own little world war... maps of that area seemed to change as quickly as clothing tends for a while, because there isn't a super-power in the region to keep the others in line.
Long story short- you rule the world or the world rules you.

By the way, you can stand by for a new world war this century featuring China and America. Likely theaters of battle are Southern Asia and the pacific. The key to the outcome of the war will be how quickly, if at all, the EU joins the fight (they are likely to follow America's old playbook of staying out and selling weapons only, with the addition of a French tactic- selling weapons to BOTH sides.) Russias neutrality or siding with the Chinese would also be an important factor in a war in Southern Asia. I would expect Russia not to get to heavily involved though, for fear of China in the post war, or NATO involvement in the war later. Remember I warned you.



posted on Aug, 14 2004 @ 12:06 PM
link   
What I don't think some of you understand is that the first atomic bombs were dropped in sheer ignorance. No one really knew or understood what was going to happen not even the scientists that built the bomb realized that the atomic bombs real power was not in the initial explosion, but in the fallout.

Back then the word atomic bomb meant nothing. The education of the military leaders was simplethey knew America had a new bombit was a big bomb that would make a big explosionand where do we drop bombs? On the cities of the enemy.

There are historians that say that Japan was ready to surrender and that dropping the bombs was unnecessary and done out of revenge. I dont believe the evidence shows this to be true. Japan really believed that they could beat the US in the island wars and thousands of American soldiers were dying to prove it. I think the real proof that Japan was not going to surrender came in the fact that we didnt just drop one atomic bomb, America had to drop TWO atomic bombs before Japan would give up. After one atomic bomb common sense should tell Japan that this war was over but they were obviously not ready to hold up a white flag.

After the dust had settle from the atomic bombs people realized very quickly what an awful weapon was built. To his credit, after the drops when other key people were running away from the responsibility, Eisenhower stood up and said I except full responsibility for dropping the atomic bomb.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 05:37 AM
link   
The US knew exactly what it was dropping and what it would do. A scientist capable of putting together such a device will know exactly what it would be able to do. A nuclear weapon isn't some crude device like a ball of uranium with a fuse. Its one of the most complex weapons ever built. We had two bombs. We fully intended to use both bombs. And we knew what each bomb would do.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I really don't see where some of you are coming from on this issue. Iran having nuclear weapons is a good idea?! I fully believe that a sovereign nation can do, with exceptions, as it pleases inside its own borders. That's not to say Iran should arm up on nukes. Iran is a country whose leadership could be toppled internally easily. There are certain measures in place in the US and in Russia that prevents the launch button from falling into the wrong hands. There are open back-channels that allow us to communicate with the Russians to make sure nukes haven't been launched. Those same safeguards wouldn't be in place with Iran. Diplomatically speaking Europe has a lot of work to do.

Where did some of you learn about WWII? Pinko McLefty's Book of Revisionist History?

Island hopping was working exceedingly well. Do you know what the Battle of Midway was? V-E freed up a lot of troops for transfer to the Pacific Theatre. I'd say that without a doubt we were winning the war against Japan. No one can say for sure what would have resulted if we had an invasion of mainland Japan, no one. However, it probably would have also resulted in countless thousands of deaths.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Giving Iran nuclear technology is like giving a monkey a loaded gun.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indy

Originally posted by American Mad Man
you know what, too bad. Japan attacked us. Japan would not surrender. So instead of getting all of our guys shot up, we used the bomb.
[edit on 13-8-2004 by American Mad Man]


What are you saying? We weren't winning or we were unable to beat them? Sounds to me like we had to resort to terrorist tactics to win a war that we were losing. Maybe not losing but certainly not winning hands down. So you would then justify nuking a city just because you don't have the stomach to fight. Why not just nuke a city every time you don't like someone just so you don't have to risk losing a life in a war. Sorry but nuking a city is a losers last resort.


We were winning the war, hands down - there is no argument otherwise. Your logic about using nuclear weapons is flawed. I stipulated that we used nuclear weapons to save over a million lives because they would nott surrender. It had nothing to do with stumaching war, and everything to do with numbers - as in how many hundreds of thousands die in a nuke blast vs how many millins die if we do a land invasion. Plenty of men ON BOTH SIDES had died already. There wa no reason to have an etra 900,000+ dead.



posted on Aug, 16 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Why is it when ever we talk about nukes some idiots like "INDY" always refer us back to "US dropping the bomb on Japan"?

The reason we dropped 2 bombs and not one was because back then Japan was Very stuborn and did not want to give up, we dropped one and they still did not throw up a white flag so 3 days went bye and we dropped another one, that one finally made it sink into there heads that they have finally been defeated.

Indy and others need to stop comparing the US to Iran, THEY ARE NOTHING ALIKE!
Indy - you talk bad about the US, yet you live here?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join