Iran Plans Nuclear-Powered Sub

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   


Speaking of responsible, the USA was the ONLY country to use nuclear weapons in war.


Semantics key word choice there "in war" even tho all nuclear power have used nukes in power and successful detonation tests to be used for what purpose?

To kill people but then agian the topic is about Iran and it's pursuit of a nuclear sub nice deflection attempt,.

Which still doesn't change the face that Irans wants the Bomb the nuclear bomb to be used against it's "enemies"

Oh and while we are on this topic if IRan thinks that having nukes will protect them against "foreign attacks" well sure the hell hasn't saved Pakistan.
edit on 12-6-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



Great Iran wants a nuclear sub nuclear power for peace eh?

A sub is used only for one thing.


YA…NO SHEET!!

These shills don’t want to hear reason! They have their agenda…and a big helping of ignorance to wash it down.

Subs aren’t for making friends….



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 




Speaking of responsible, the USA was the ONLY country to use nuclear weapons in war.

This thread isn’t about US’s justification for having nukes.


Why should the USA tell Iran not to have nukes if the USA has nukes?



So Iran’s nuclear sub and the subs they currently possess are for use near their own shores?


Are you saying they can't have advanced weapons and/or attempt to have a navy that goes beyond their shores?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 




Great Iran wants a nuclear sub nuclear power for peace eh? A sub is used only for one thing.


Why should they not have a sub? Who are we the USA to tell them they can't have a sub. We have plenty of subs.

Did you ever think of deterrence? Maybe the USA or any other country would think twice about attacking Iran if they knew that they had subs lurking around.

Isn't that the reason we have subs?

Get off your high horse of OMG OMG please don't let iran get a sub so we can attack them more easily without repercussions.
edit on 083030p://6America/ChicagoTue, 12 Jun 2012 20:49:05 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by neo96
 




Great Iran wants a nuclear sub nuclear power for peace eh? A sub is used only for one thing.


Why should they not have a sub? Who are we the USA to tell them they can't have a sub. We have plenty of subs


Want to quote where I and anyone else said they shouldn't have a nuclear powered sub?

What Iran wants Iran's revolutionary guard arrives on the scene.




Did you ever think of deterrence? Maybe the USA or any other country would think twice about attacking Iran if they knew that they had subs lurking around.


Pay attention that was already answered in another post for those who bothered to read it.

Nukes have not save Pakistan from attacks now has it?




Get off your high horse of OMG OMG please don't let iran get a sub so we can attack them more easily without repercussions. edit on 083030p://6America/ChicagoTue, 12 Jun 2012 20:


Nice off topic little jab there.
edit on 12-6-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 



Why should the USA tell Iran not to have nukes if the USA has nukes?


The whole dammed world is telling Iran not to have nukes (except your heroes in China, Russia and Syria).


Are you saying they can't have advanced weapons and/or attempt to have a navy that goes beyond their shores?


YES...The world community is saying that....YES.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 




The whole dammed world is telling Iran not to have nukes (except your heroes in China, Russia and Syria).


If the whole world jumped off a bridge would you do it? Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to invasion and Iran knows even if it used a nuke it would be vaporized by a response.



YES...The world community is saying that....YES.


Why so it would be easier to attack them? How about everyone who is telling them to not have advanced weapons give up their advanced weapons first.

Plus when you mention whole world; the whole world is a hostage to US foreign policy. If you don't follow the US's word you will get hit with economic and other sanctions.

The US just bullies the other countries into agreeing with them.
edit on 083030p://6America/ChicagoTue, 12 Jun 2012 20:56:43 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 




Want to quote where I and anyone else said they shouldn't have a nuclear powered sub? What Iran wants Iran's revolutionary guard arrives on the scene.


Then don't complain about them getting or working on a nuclear powered sub.



Pay attention that was already answered in another post for those who bothered to read it. Nukes have not save Pakistan from attacks now has it?


There has been no ground invasion or massive war. If pakistan did not have nukes there would have been a war much faster.

Why did we not attack Russia when they had nukes?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 




Then don't complain about them getting or working on a nuclear powered sub.


That's funny thought i was voicing an opinion about the "Peaceful IRan" building a nuclear power submarine, a weapon that is used for war.



There has been no ground invasion or massive war. If pakistan did not have nukes there would have been a war much faster.


Still doesn't change the fact they have been getting bombed for the past 3 years so nukes haven't saved them

.


Why did we not attack Russia when they had nukes?


The US and Russia were at war for over 60 years Americans and Russian's died and the comparison is rather moot considering the driving force behind Iran is a religious theocracy wher madd never enters in to that equation.

A enemy who will use any and all means to kill the infidel is a danger to the world unlike any that has ever been seen before.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


You state,

Iran poses no threat in conflict with US.

You speak the truth, for now.
What I see is a lot of "pawns" being removed from the board.
The ptb must do something to reduce the size of these standing armies.
Soon they may decide to enter the gates of Rome.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 




That's funny thought i was voicing an opinion about the "Peaceful IRan" building a nuclear power submarine, a weapon that is used for war.


Your tone in conversation indicates that you are displeased with them gaining this ability to have a nuclear powered sub.



Still doesn't change the fact they have been getting bombed for the past 3 years so nukes haven't saved them


If you believe that, then whats the big deal with them have nuclear weapons for self defnse like anyone else? It is their country and they have a right to determine their own destiny. If they use the nukes on anyone they will be destroyed



Iran is a religious theocracy


Haha, USA has so many religious influence in its politics its not even funny.

Plus USA worships money for the defense contractors. Those defense contractors want war just as much as an theocracy would want war.



A enemy who will use any and all means to kill the infidel is a danger to the world unlike any that has ever been seen before.


LMAO, when did they kill an infidel?

The USA is a danger to the world because it has a history of the most military interventions anywhere and has killed a lot more people than Iran has



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Look, Iran already has flying saucers and flying boats and now folks are in an uproar because they want a nuclear powered sub? Big deal.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by princeofpeace
 

Dish. Sit.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 




Your tone in conversation indicates that you are displeased with them gaining this ability to have a nuclear powered sub.


Sorry they are just words on a forum and the topic is Iran get's a nuclear powered sub guess some people would rather discuss everything but the topic.




If you believe that, then whats the big deal with them have nuclear weapons for self defnse like anyone else? It is their country and they have a right to determine their own destiny. If they use the nukes on anyone they will be destroyed


Likewise then that would mean the US or Isreal has the right to determine their own destiny but wait?

Nope.




Haha, USA has so many religious influence in its politics its not even funny.


Right ! Uh cept with that little thing call the separation of church and state.




The USA is a danger to the world because it has a history of the most military interventions anywhere and has killed a lot more people than Iran has


Sorry but what the hell is going on in Syria at the moment?

Oh yeah military interventionism by everyone not the Us but that's ok!!!

Meh



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





Likewise then that would mean the US or Isreal has the right to determine their own destiny but wait? Nope.


I'm not complain about the US or Israel having nukes. They all have a right to as anyone else including iran. I merely bring up the example to outline our hypocrisy when I say: "why can the USA have nukes but not Iran" USA has a right to, and so does Iran. If the USA wants Iran to give up its nukes then the USA and all countries who ask them to give it up, should give up theirs



Right ! Uh cept with that little thing call the separation of church and state.


Like that is ever followed.

The defense contractors and corporations are running the show in the USA, and they want war just as any much theocracy.

The Religion in the USA = worship of money.




Sorry but what the hell is going on in Syria at the moment? Oh yeah military interventionism by everyone not the Us but that's ok!!! Meh


Go to the syria thread or libya thread where we can talk about the intervention and its results:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



A enemy who will use any and all means to kill the infidel is a danger to the world unlike any that has ever been seen before.


To which I corrected and told you that the USA has killed more people than Iran. So who is the real threat to world peace? Who is the real danger here
edit on 093030p://6America/ChicagoTue, 12 Jun 2012 21:29:31 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 



If the whole world jumped off a bridge would you do it? Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to invasion and Iran knows even if it used a nuke it would be vaporized by a response.


If the whole dammed world thought I was wrong then YES, I would believe I was wrong.

Douche bag dictators with nukes are a target…it’s no deterrent; haven’t you figured that out?



Why so it would be easier to attack them? How about everyone who is telling them to not have advanced weapons give up their advanced weapons first.


Because that would motivate them!! You can’t be serious!




Plus when you mention whole world; the whole world is a hostage to US foreign policy. If you don't follow the US's word you will get hit with economic and other sanctions.

The US just bullies the other countries into agreeing with them.



Because the US is right! What is wrong about a democratic republic and capitalism? If it’s so dammed bad then why do the most prosperous nations in the world emulate the US model?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Nah lets just cut the crap and end this conversation there is only one reason to have a nuclear power submarine:

Unlimited range for offensive strike capability which is anything but peaceful.

Iran the warmonger!



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 





Nah lets just cut the crap and end this conversation there is only one reason to have a nuclear power submarine: Unlimited range for offensive strike capability which is anything but peaceful. Iran the warmonger!


Nuclear powered submarines are a deterrent in that they provide offense capability so that the enemy will think twice about attacking. Iran has missiles in range of US bases right now, why havent they attacked? because they will be obliterated that is why. They also have numerous ways to attack US bases overseas but have not done so yet. A sub adds to their deterrent capability.

Warmonger?? Iran?? LMAO.

How many countries has the USA attacked over the past 100 years? Iran? HAHA

Get your facts straight dude.

I keep asking you, who is the real danger to the world? Iran or USA? Lets take a look at the numbers and how many people each side has killed shall we?

You conveniently skipped over this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Where I made certain assessments:



The defense contractors and corporations are running the show in the USA, and they want war just as any much theocracy.

The Religion in the USA = worship of money.
edit on 093030p://6America/ChicagoTue, 12 Jun 2012 21:38:44 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 





If the whole dammed world thought I was wrong then YES, I would believe I was wrong. Douche bag dictators with nukes are a target…it’s no deterrent; haven’t you figured that out?


The whole world is wrong in this instance. Anytime the USA convinces a country to disarm itself, it is easy attack for them. How about you give up your guns?




Why so it would be easier to attack them? How about everyone who is telling them to not have advanced weapons give up their advanced weapons first.

Because that would motivate them!! You can’t be serious!


Why do you want them to give up their weapons? So you can attack them?

No it would motivate NATO TO ATTACK THEM since they would be unarmed

US bases are surrounding Iran.

NATO has a history of attacking countries in the Middle east

Iran is another Middle eastern country.

Lets do the math. NATO bases around Iran, Iran is a middle eastern country, Nato has history of attacking Middle eastern countries, NATO telling Iran to give up its self defense weapons....

Yea Iran wants to attack someone...Lame...its is self defense

Look at history for past 100 years.

how many countries has Iran attacked? How many has USA-NATO attacked?




Because the US is right! What is wrong about a democratic republic and capitalism? If it’s so dammed bad then why do the most prosperous nations in the world emulate the US model?


LMAO, USA is right? That is your ignorant and incorrect method of analysis.

What is your evidence that the USA is right? What you waved your flag around?
edit on 093030p://6America/ChicagoTue, 12 Jun 2012 21:46:09 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
double

post

edit on 12-6-2012 by seabag because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join