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.

 

Just why cant Iran have nukes?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicEgg
Iran has shown us that they are not taking genuine action. Does anyone think they might be talking and swaggering like this for the benefit of their own people and not the rest of the world? I have wondered this for some time. They talk a lot, but what do they actually do? Nothing. Hot air. And that should really be fine with the rest of us.


I would say they only talk and take no action because what can they do? The moment they start a war, they will be blasted from all sides and with what do they want to attack? It's not like they have a big army with modern air/land vehicles. I doubt anyone is afraid of their 25 35-year old F14 Tomcat or those 40 year old russian tanks they have.
And that's why i think they want nuclear weapons, they become a bigger threat through it and who knows what happens. That country is ruled by retards and retards shouldn't be allowed to play with fire.

Besides, instead of promoting nuclear weapons and allowing every country to build them, we rather should try to finally get rid of that crap




posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by BooKrackers
If you knew yer next door neighbor hated you with every fiber of their being without any kind of compromise for the greater good of just being left alone...would you want to see them unloading a car in their driveway full of rifles?

I think not, you'd have to take action or risk being shot by your neighbor right?



Your neighbour hasn't done anything wrong until he shoots you. And if you happen to be psycho and overly aggressive then he has good reason to want a gun.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


And no other country does this?

How could Iran be the only country to even think of this?

Could it be that we only see what we want to see?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


No country has ever dropped a nuke! America dropped 2 A-Bombs to end the second World War!

Thats right to end the bloodiest war in the history of man, every other option was explored, projected casualties were in the 10s of millions, or 250,000 from 2 bombs. It was the smallest damage for the best outcome. The Japanese back then still practiced the credo " death before dishonor" and were openly bragging how they would take at least 1,000,000 American service men to death with them, which was ironically enough, almost our exact estimate also.

America is also the only country that offered to get rid of all nukes, the only stipulation was that, everyone would have to agree to give them up, not one other country agreed. So it seems this is not just a west east issue, all peoples at the time disagreed, so they seem like arent going anywhere soon. Having said that, it does seem wrong for some to be able to have them, and say others cant because....... however, for example, all Americans are aloud to own firearms, but we limit the availabilty to people that are proven violent or dangerous to others, the mentally unsound and the young.

The point being, it isnt fair for anyone to have them and say Iran cant, however most believe like myself, this isnt a fair and perfect world, and Iran does not show the compitance level one would expect from a country wanting to weild the most powerful weapon ever created by man. So I would strongly disagree with Iran having them, their treatment of their own citizens, shows this, IMHO, very clearly...i.e..treatment of ,gays, women, political rivals, disadents, adulterers and raped women( also considered to be adulterers, as they should have defended theirs mans property to the death).

IMO Iran is under a sick and twisted form of government that only leads to poorer conditions for the many, in return for lavish life styles of excess at every imaginable level for the few in power. If Irans government acted more like, oh I dont know, ANY other country on earth besides North Korea, then things would be different. We didnt stop Pakistan from getting them by force did we? We also didnt try to bomb India did we? How about the Ukrain having all those nukes now that the U.S.S.R. has broken up?

So why do we keep having these kinds of threads? We arent talking about just any country here. I have already stated 2 mideastern countries we did stop from getting nukes, that we pretty usually disagree with alot of the time, it is obvious it isnt just the U.S. be bullies wanting all the power, many nations have come together and decided a long time ago they thought until the current government is gone then they cant have them. It is not their planet or our ( the U.S. ) it is OUR ( every ones ) world, no different than a home owners association making rules for the neighbor hood. It is only proper planning to try to limit those that would go overboard, from having the means to do so in so destructive a way. I know some of you are going to say I am a PRO U.S.A. all the way tupe blah blah blah. You would be right, i think America is awesome! Perfect? HELL NO!!!!!!! Better than Iran in every single way? YES. More responsible than Iran in every single way? Well i couldnt really talk to that point, as I dont know, I am not a head of state, I only get the news from the net, not the back door really dirty dirt, that all governments preform. More capable of weilding power without acting like a 4 year old who found daddys revolver? Definitely, the U.S. government has already shown that, they offered to end the nuke business already, all others declined. They have many and havent used them, except in the most dire of situations, in the worlds technological infancy. Noone was prepared for somthing like that back then, the sight of its power even gave pause the same politicians that would use them. The Presidents decision to use them was not made easily, and the world learned what kind of tragedy we were now capable of, i think this is the reason the Cuban missile crisis, and the cold war as a whole never went hot, everyone has skin in the game now, no matter where in the world. Nukes are just too strong, they will be the death of us all!



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Really???? Are you seriously asking this question?


Second.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Submarines
Really???? Are you seriously asking this question?


Second.


Yes - because not all of us are exposed to the brain-washing military indoctrinated propaganda that most Americans absorb on a daily basis.

Can you not see that America are the ones who worry the world, not Iran?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by mandroids
 


the problem is that it de-stabilises the region. creates a new axis of power for the Mid East centred around Iran. it will weaken pro-usa countries and create a situtation where Iran could close the straight of Hormuz and Europe & USA will not be able to do anything aabout it. Worst of all is how responsible will Iran be if they have a fully working nuke with the means to deliver. Bearing in mind that they have a very outdated and unfair legal system and that they do not value their own citizen's freedom and life as highly as other countries, i.e. they put religion first and the peopel cannot hold the ruling party accountable.

the questions you should ask is why do they want them and what is stop them using them once acquired?

because if they want them for defensive reasons this will not work as they will be attacked if they succeed. If they dont want to be attacked they need to allow access to UN inspectors and demonstrate nuclear program is purely peaceful.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Submarines
Really???? Are you seriously asking this question?


Second.



AGENT?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I don't think ANYONE should have nukes. Why have a weapon that will completely annihilate all life on this planet? To say, "Well, if I can't win, I'm taking EVERYONE down with me!"? The more countries with nuclear weapons, the higher the chance of a nuclear exchange, in which could easily escalate into complete destruction of life, and our planet for a very long time to come.

The type of weapons the "super" powers hold are truly frightening. I don't think it takes a leap in logic to see that the less chance of nuclear exchange between two countries, the better off our entire species will be. And with fewer countries holding these weapons, the lower the chance of nuclear armageddon.
edit on 1-2-2012 by Syyth007 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by mandroids
If you consider how volatile the Middle East is, who in the Middle East has nukes and the fact the west its self only escalated nuclear weapons making to assure mutual destruction; just why cant Iran have such weapons?

Propaganda aside, it actually makes sense to have them if you wish to avoid being invaded, sorry, ‘sprung’. As for the regime that rules in Iran, who helped put them there?

Like it or not, in the 21st century, countries need these weapons to ensure national security. I am asking a genuine question.


Yes...thinking about it..i am also sad that Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons. The he would also have "avoided" that other countries "invade" Germany..as you so nicely formulate it.

And yes (before you ask me)..i DO set the Iranian regime and other regimes (NK etc.) on par with Hitler.

I think it's ironic that you in your bizarre defense of Iran actually STATE that nuclear weapons are the solutions of all problems to "ensure national security". Frankly, this is laughable to follow your logic.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   
A far better question is whether or not it wants them. It should be apparent that Iran has no requirement for nuclear weapons because while they are quite possibly the greatest deterrent there is, Iran in its current non-nuclear state is sufficiently able to deter a US-led attack, never mind a piddly Israeli one a la Opera/Orchard.

Iran is not justified in testing and developing deliverable nuclear weapons and from their perspective it is not worth the risk, but testing and developing the capability to test and develop deliverable nuclear weapons is another matter entirely.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicEgg
 


Originally posted by CosmicEgg
Politics is just entirely random and surreal....

No it’s not. Behind all there’s a very exact plan and campaign for subjugation of mankind, since centuries following the “divide and conquer” pattern. And the game players are not only in the US, but also in the NK and Iran top government. And all these ‘players’ work hand in hand behind the scenes and STRIVE to provoke, incite, aggravate political tensions and wars. This is the only real problem with “NK” and “Iran”.
edit on 1-2-2012 by giugliot because: spelling



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123

Originally posted by mandroids
If you consider how volatile the Middle East is, who in the Middle East has nukes and the fact the west its self only escalated nuclear weapons making to assure mutual destruction; just why cant Iran have such weapons?

Propaganda aside, it actually makes sense to have them if you wish to avoid being invaded, sorry, ‘sprung’. As for the regime that rules in Iran, who helped put them there?

Like it or not, in the 21st century, countries need these weapons to ensure national security. I am asking a genuine question.


Yes...thinking about it..i am also sad that Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons. The he would also have "avoided" that other countries "invade" Germany..as you so nicely formulate it.

And yes (before you ask me)..i DO set the Iranian regime and other regimes (NK etc.) on par with Hitler.

I think it's ironic that you in your bizarre defense of Iran actually STATE that nuclear weapons are the solutions of all problems to "ensure national security". Frankly, this is laughable to follow your logic.





There is some evidence that WW2 Germany did have nuclear capabilities and perhaps even Japan, but did not use them. That’s another story.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by mandroids
 


I don't feel comfortable with Iran having nukes. Personally, although they seem to be one of the most reasonable countries in the area (yes, they say a lot of things, but their actions are mostly reasonable), I'm still not at ease with a country having nukes, when it's ideology has religious influence.

Having that said, Iran seems as extremist to me as any other country, including the US.

I think that the consequences of what western countries have been doing (sanctions that could lead to conflict), would be far worst than anything Iran would ever do on their own, even with nukes in their basement.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 



Yes...thinking about it..i am also sad that Hitler didn't have nuclear weapons. The he would also have "avoided" that other countries "invade" Germany..as you so nicely formulate it.


Nazi Germany was an aggressive country with conquest ambitions.

Iran isn't.

Nazi Germany acted in an era before 2 nuclear bombs were used, and thus showing the world their true power.

Iran is acting in a world where we know how devastating nuclear weapons are, and how in the end, everyone loses everything. The EMP blasts alone would be devastating to several economies, if hit.

That translates to governments being aware that nuclear weapons are an intimidating weapon, not for actual use.


And yes (before you ask me)..i DO set the Iranian regime and other regimes (NK etc.) on par with Hitler.


I'm sorry to get in between the exchange of arguments...but...

If you actually consider Iran on par with Nazi Germany prior to WW2, then you don't know much about history, with all due respect.

One country has nothing to do with the other, nor the situation they are/were in.

You can make comparisons, but you shouldn't compare Iran to Germany.

You should compare Iran to Japan. Japan only attacked Pearl Harbor for the exact same reasons Iran is complaining: sanctions.


I think it's ironic that you in your bizarre defense of Iran actually STATE that nuclear weapons are the solutions of all problems to "ensure national security". Frankly, this is laughable to follow your logic.


I don't see how that argument is so hard to understand or accept.

If you have a gun, and you want to attack someone, you will choose a person who is unarmed. Why? Because you have the upper hand, you have a gun, and they don't.

Iran having nukes, is in line with an argument used by every single american that I've met that carries a gun, and that argument is:

If you are carrying a gun, for defense purposes, then if someone shows aggression towards you, you can defend yourself.

How does that work for the american average joe, and not in a geopolitical scale between countries? Iran wants to be left alone. I don't see how it's so hard for people to understand that.

The US and Europe are pushing for a confrontation and conflict, clearly.
edit on 1/2/12 by Tifozi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by mandroids
 


Are you implying that we had something to do with putting ayatollah khamenei in power? You may want to brush up on your history a bit.

Or any you implying we had something to do with putting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power? Again, I would brush up on your history a bit.

So what are you implying with that statement?



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


No, the only people worried about America, are internet rats, that believe anything the internet feeds them. If your only looking for one opinion, that is exactly what your going to find!



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by mandroids
 


Can you please link me to this evidence? Or would you like to back step, calling these facts, rumors and internet truths? There is a HUGE difference between the 2...

I assure you... Hitler would have been launching nukes like a pitching machine (probably before he took his life) if he would have had them.. To imply that Hitler would have had the restraint to hold back nukes, is irresponsible and down right hilarious.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I think Iran should have nuclear missiles.
If M.A.D was ok for america and Russia.
then others can have M.A.D.

if they have nuclear weapons no one attacks them.
ever one around them has them too.
so you have M.A.D.

looking back on how things went after WW2.
american wonted to take over a lot of the east.
general pattern wonted to attack Russia.
now no one is standing up to america
they are sneaking in to all the east counties.

sometime soon Russia and China will say stop.
let the rest of the world play the stupid war games
that Brittan and america did.

they dont care about the people!
just money they lose.



posted on Feb, 1 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by KillShotMi
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


No, the only people worried about America, are internet rats, that believe anything the internet feeds them. If your only looking for one opinion, that is exactly what your going to find!


Internet rats?

You do realise how idiotic and brainwashed that sounds...

'Oh land of the free'



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join