Just why cant Iran have nukes?

reply to post by CosmicEgg

Only twice in history has such a weapon been used, and we know who pulled that trigger. They still have an itchy trigger finger and they aren't disarming,

And the very fact that they haven't used one since rather disproves the second part of the sentence.

Please show how the USA still has 'an itchy trigger finger' - facts not opinion.

I put it to you that the USA and all the other original nuclear powers have proven their responsibility, even those dastardly French, by not using them.

Don't know if your remarkably trusting, remarkably naive or remarkably stupid thinking Iran would be equally as responsible.

And as for those who think that Iran gaining basic nuclear weapon capabiity would prove a deterrent if the USA or any other country in the nuclear club chose a no holds barred attack on Iran really are fooling themselves.

Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
Are you kidding? Really, you have a difficult time understanding why Iran shouldn't have nukes? I honestly can't believe you are this ignorant of what has been said coming out of this country over the last several years, the threats to destroy the west, Israel, etc.

I think most rational people are having trouble why the pot is calling the kettle black. The US is saying no nukes but keep theirs? No one is showing their ignorance more than you at this point. Just because people don't swallow everything that the US government and MSM spoon feed them does not mean they are ignorant. Please show me the source where they threaten to destroy the west, Israel, etc.

Seriously. What is wrong with you people? Do you have loose connections?

Do you know what some of the people on Utoya did? They walked up to the shooter to see if they could talk him out of it.

You know what happened to them. He shot them.

Because someone intent on your death DOESN'T CARE about your sense of fair play. Shake your damn heads.

reply to post by Freeborn

Don't know if your remarkably trusting, remarkably naive or remarkably stupid thinking Iran would be equally as responsible.

I point your attention to "irresponsible North Korea", have they used any? They killed US soldiers over a tree.

And as for those who think that Iran gaining basic nuclear weapon capabiity would prove a deterrent if the USA or any other country in the nuclear club chose a no holds barred attack on Iran really are fooling themselves.

It would be a deterrent, please let all of us silly people know why that isn't true.

Originally posted by Aeons
Seriously. What is wrong with you people? Do you have loose connections?

Do you know what some of the people on Utoya did? They walked up to the shooter to see if they could talk him out of it.

You know what happened to them. He shot them.

Because someone intent on your death DOESN'T CARE about your sense of fair play. Shake your damn heads.

Iran is not a crazed man in Norway. Are you saying Iran is intent on my death? Or the US is intent on Iran's death? Sorry, I don't know which way you are arguing for.

Originally posted by flexy123

You obviously FORGOT why the US got involved in Iraq in the first place.

Hint: It was a dictator (dead now) who invaded Kuwait and set their oil fields on fire.

Forgotten?

That was called the Gulf War.

The other thing was not a war but an illegal invasion, built on lies and deception by a retarded monkey acting as a leader and supported by wooping, cheering Americans. I wonder how those very people would feel if the rest of the world thought their president was a naughty boy and invaded to liberate them from tyranny?

reply to post by superman2012


Iran's leadership specifically believes themselves to be laying the pathway out for their version of end of times.

As a stated GOAL of a government, I think I choose to believe them and not be particularly interested in making it easy for them to accomplish.

I understand *you* may like the idea, or secretly be wishing for it..... I am not.

reply to post by Freeborn


What evidence do you have that Iran would definitively use them once they have them? What gives others the right to have them and to proliferate despite the NPT, but others must be monitored at every turn when they even breathe anything "unsavory" from an opposing perspective. Why is the US allowed to have them when they *have used them*. Japan can only have a defensive military owing to their "misbehavior" in WWII, despite their being threatened by both NK and China. Why is it one color for some and an entirely other color for others? Doesn't that make you wonder a bit?

No nation on Earth can state that they have never in their history invaded another. No one can say that a nation should not be able to build and maintain defences as their situation and perspective demand.

If any country came posturing up to US shores and threatening all manner of goading and defiance, do you think the US would not hesitate to defend herself? Do you think all the rest of the world's nations should just roll over when Uncle Sam barks a command? Pff. Those days are gone. Let's see who shoots first. The answer may just surprise you a lot. Let's see where these winds blow.

reply to post by Aeons


Secretly wishing for what? I still don't know if you are talking about Iran or the US. I'm afraid you aren't making yourself clear enough my dear.

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Aeons

 

Secretly wishing for what? I still don't know if you are talking about Iran or the US. I'm afraid you aren't making yourself clear enough my dear.

No - you are just choosing to be obtuse.

reply to post by Aeons


ok then.

Edit: I think I get it. You are saying that Iran wants to kill us all and is developing nuclear weapons to accomplish that goal. I say, " Show me the sources".

reply to post by superman2012


If you'd bothered to read my earlier post you'd know, but to save you the trouble of having to look I'll re-iterate why.

If or when Iran gains nuclear weapon capability they will still be at least a generation away from intercontinental capability.
As such they pose no direct threat to USA, France or the UK and only very limited real threat to Russia or China.
And if any of those countries decided to use their full armoury and not be bothered about civilian losses etc they could quite easily send Iran back to the stone age in a matter of minutes - the USA, Russia and China could probably do it without even using nuclear weapons.

So why does Iran want nuclear weapons?

Because Iran wants to bully and intimidate it's Sunni neighbours and be the regional super power, or in other words be the very thing it criticises the USA etc of being.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by superman2012

 

If you'd bothered to read my earlier post you'd know, but to save you the trouble of having to look I'll re-iterate why.

Sorry, that's the nature of ATS, I'm not going to go over pages to understand your viewpoint, I ask, and you can answer if you want.

If or when Iran gains nuclear weapon capability they will still be at least a generation away from intercontinental capability.
As such they pose no direct threat to USA, France or the UK and only very limited real threat to Russia or China.

If they develop ICBM's then I would be worried. To listen to MSM and the government propaganda machine without doing any digging is not being a responsible citizen. They would not threaten their Allies. Why would they be a threat to Russia or China? or are you just saying that because they are close in proximity?

And if any of those countries decided to use their full armoury and not be bothered about civilian losses etc they could quite easily send Iran back to the stone age in a matter of minutes - the USA, Russia and China could probably do it without even using nuclear weapons.

No doubt, but, are they willing to suffer the casualties to do it? and why are you lumping the US in with Russia and China when they are on two different sides of this issue?

So why does Iran want nuclear weapons?

Please tell us.

Because Iran wants to bully and intimidate it's Sunni neighbours and be the regional super power, or in other words be the very thing it criticises the USA etc of being.

Conjecture, MSM, or just your personal thoughts? Not one shred of actual proof. Plus, you have that backwards, the US is the hypocrite in this case.

reply to post by CosmicEgg

What evidence do you have that Iran would definitively use them once they have them?

None whatsoever.
But with their past links to terrorism and their 'extremism' I fear they MIGHT.

As such I would rather err on the side of caution and be called a hypocrite rather than accede to their wishes and then see pictures of the nuclear aftermath in somewhere like Iraq in retaliation for the attacks on it's Shi'a population etc.
Not saying it's going to happen, but it could....so why allow the opportunity?

Why is the US allowed to have them when they *have used them*.

Someone would have used them....it wasn't until they were used in anger that their full potential for devestation was understood by all.
I sincerely hope they won't ever be used again.

And I think that those countries that have them have proven their restraint and reluctance to use them by the very fact that they haven't since.

Japan can only have a defensive military owing to their "misbehavior" in WWII, despite their being threatened by both NK and China.

I don't know.
I could give the official reason, but I'm sure you know that as well as I do.

Why is it one color for some and an entirely other color for others? Doesn't that make you wonder a bit?

If that was true how come China has them?

If any country came posturing up to US shores and threatening all manner of goading and defiance, do you think the US would not hesitate to defend herself? Do you think all the rest of the world's nations should just roll over when Uncle Sam barks a command? Pff. Those days are gone. Let's see who shoots first. The answer may just surprise you a lot. Let's see where these winds blow

I agree entirely wholeheartedly with everything you said in that paragraph.
Except I doubt it would surprise me.

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Aeons

 

ok then.

Edit: I think I get it. You are saying that Iran wants to kill us all and is developing nuclear weapons to accomplish that goal. I say, " Show me the sources".

edit on 1-2-2012 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

There is no source that would be good enough for you. Sense about their actual energy needs has no impact on you. People link up actual members of their leadership telling you this, and you guys dismiss it.

Tell me the standard of proof you need.

reply to post by Aeons

There is no source that would be good enough for you. Sense about their actual energy needs has no impact on you. People link up actual members of their leadership telling you this, and you guys dismiss it.

Tell me the standard of proof you need.

Yes. A reliable source. Not your opinion or conjecture. Something from an impartial third party, like the newest IAEA report, or anything from the IAEA saying that Iran is building a weapon. Can't find it? Not surprised.

Their energy needs? How much power do they consume in a year? What is their estimate for growth that they need for the next decade? How much power will the Nuclear power plants give them? Are they enriching in order to sell the rods to other countries? How big are they looking to expand their medical facilities? These are just questions I thought up while I am writing this. Until you have answers to these questions (more to follow if you need), then you have no proof.

Standard of proof: Impartial third party.

Edit: what do you mean "you guys"?

reply to post by superman2012

Sorry, that's the nature of ATS, I'm not going to go over pages to understand your viewpoint, I ask, and you can answer if you want

You are trying to teach me about the nature of ATS???????

Believe it or not but some of us do TRY to read all of a thread before posting in it, of course on the odd occassion passion get's the better, but it is only on the odd occassion.

I'm sure you don't need me to explain why.

And the fact that you openly state you don't probably says more about you than anything I would presume to say..

If they develop ICBM's then I would be worried.

Good.

To listen to MSM and the government propaganda machine without doing any digging is not being a responsible citizen.

And how am I guilty of that or was that just a generalisation?

I assure you I check and double check and then distrust anything my government and MSM says or does....but I try to form my opinion free from any political dogma or bias etc or the obvious influences of MSM, unfortunately I am merely human and as such am as susceptible as anyone else.

They would not threaten their Allies.

Which allies?

Why would they be a threat to Russia or China? or are you just saying that because they are close in proximity?

Yes, because of their proximity and because they along with the USA, France and the UK were the original nuclear club and are somewhat more experienced in handling them and technologically.

No doubt, but, are they willing to suffer the casualties to do it?

What casualties?
I suspect that if any of the nuclear super powers were ever driven to such action it would be with the prior assent of the other nations.
MAD is as relevant today as it ever has been.

and why are you lumping the US in with Russia and China when they are on two different sides of this issue?

Because Russia and China often publicly criticise the US etc yet privately support their actions.
Not everything is always as it seems in global politics.

Both have increasing problems with Islamic extremists and may feel uncomfortable having an Islamic nuclear power on their doorstep.

Conjecture, MSM, or just your personal thoughts? Not one shred of actual proof

Probably a mixture of all of them.
Iran does have a history of being aggresive to it's neighbours....some of whom have been very aggresive towards them as well.

Iraq is a hell hole, obviously some of 'the wests' policies haven't helped the situation, (an under statement if ever there was one), but the carnage being carried out predominanty by Sunni's on Shia's outstrips anything either 'the west' or Saddam ever did.
How long before Iran involves itself?
If they had nuclea weapons would you feel 100% certain they wouldn't use them.

Conjecture yes, but reasoned conjecture and on such things are life or death decisions sometimes made.

. Plus, you have that backwards, the US is the hypocrite in this case.

The US has been guilty of any things....but they are not responsible for all the world's ill's.

Ah well its pretty easy. Iran has a long history of making threats against almost all the other nations in the region. Mostly over oil prices but also trying to export the revolution. All this funding of rebels, assasinations, coup attempts, and terror attacks across the mid-east and africa makes all those nations nervous about Iran. When Iran gets nukes it makes all those threats credible because now they can back it up. So if you are Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt, Iraq etc. Now you have to depend on the US being willing to get into a nuclear exchange to defend you and that just will not do so you need nukes of your own. Now you have a dozen nations with nukes in a region full of unstable regimes. You want to see real nightmare? Thats it.

Now I am sure someone will counter with, what about Israel they have nukes. Yes they do but, they also have the conventional military ability to crush everyone around them So people figure if Israel wanted to crush them they could have done it without nukes and the use of nukes of would ruin their support in the west. So basicly no one worries about them using nukes outside of one being used on them. The Arabs know the Israelis and what to expect from them. Iran on the other hand has never had the power to act on all its talk and nobody wants to know what will happen if they do.

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Aeons

 

There is no source that would be good enough for you. Sense about their actual energy needs has no impact on you. People link up actual members of their leadership telling you this, and you guys dismiss it.

Tell me the standard of proof you need.

Yes. A reliable source. Not your opinion or conjecture. Something from an impartial third party, like the newest IAEA report, or anything from the IAEA saying that Iran is building a weapon. Can't find it? Not surprised.

Their energy needs? How much power do they consume in a year? What is their estimate for growth that they need for the next decade? How much power will the Nuclear power plants give them? Are they enriching in order to sell the rods to other countries? How big are they looking to expand their medical facilities? These are just questions I thought up while I am writing this. Until you have answers to these questions (more to follow if you need), then you have no proof.

Standard of proof: Impartial third party.

Edit: what do you mean "you guys"?

edit on 1-2-2012 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)

How about that in those IAEA reports they continue to find traces of highly enriched uranium? Hm?

reply to post by Freeborn

You are trying to teach me about the nature of ATS???????

Someone had to try, but, you yourself agreed with me in the next sentence.

And how am I guilty of that or was that just a generalisation?

Just a generalization, not an accusation.

I assure you I check and double check and then distrust anything my government and MSM says or does....but I try to form my opinion free from any political dogma or bias etc or the obvious influences of MSM, unfortunately I am merely human and as such am as susceptible as anyone else.

Might want to try triple checking then. Iran has not been found to have nuclear weapons. US government said so, Iran says so, IAEA says so, and ISIS says so. Why are they only people that say they do, on ATS or MSM?

Which allies?

You want me to brush your hair while you type in Google too?

Yes, because of their proximity and because they along with the USA, France and the UK were the original nuclear club and are somewhat more experienced in handling them and technologically.

Ridiculous to suggest that Iran would attack Russia and China simply because they are part of the "original nuclear club".

What casualties? I suspect that if any of the nuclear super powers were ever driven to such action it would be with the prior assent of the other nations. MAD is as relevant today as it ever has been.

Not a nuclear war, but, an invasion of Iran would leave them with higher than they are used to casualties.

Because Russia and China often publicly criticise the US etc yet privately support their actions. Not everything is always as it seems in global politics. Both have increasing problems with Islamic extremists and may feel uncomfortable having an Islamic nuclear power on their doorstep.

I agree that not everything is as it seems to be in global politics, but they are on opposing sides of how to deal with Iran, US has placed sanctions against China for this. Read.

Iran does have a history of being aggresive to it's neighbours....some of whom have been very aggresive towards them as well.

The only time they were aggressive was when they won the Iraq-Iran war and after beating the Iraqis, they kept fighting for years.

Iraq is a hell hole, obviously some of 'the wests' policies haven't helped the situation, (an under statement if ever there was one), but the carnage being carried out predominanty by Sunni's on Shia's outstrips anything either 'the west' or Saddam ever did.

"The west" destroyed a country under false pretenses. They are trying to garner public support to do it again.

If they had nuclear weapons would you feel 100% certain they wouldn't use them.

No. I would just hope they would show the same patience if they had a nuke like they have shown without one.

The US has been guilty of any things....but they are not responsible for all the world's ill's.

I never said they were, I said they are the hypocrite in this case.