BF2S Forums Iran announces plan to build 10 more nuclear fuel enrichment plants

Mekstizzle wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Maybe they want nukes for the same reason everyone else does, so that other nuclear powers can't threaten them.

I must've missed that announcement of the UK threatening to nuke anyone who looked at them in a shifty way.

So basically you haven't been watching the news for the past decade or so, probably longer, about Iran and how they're going to be invaded by Israel/USA/UK and the like. You've heard none of that talk whatsoever at all, and now you're surprised they want Nukes, Alrighty then...

As long as Israel has nukes, and as long as Iran is always being threatened by loads of other countries, they're gonna pursue their nuclear program. Hell, they're going to do it no matter what now, that ship has already set sail in terms of having them not want nukes. Maybe once some "parity" is acheived, Iran won't be fucked around so much, which eventually leads to somewhat better relations because everyone is now not being so stupid. Not like it's not happened like that before in terms of countries and nukes.

Even if someone does manage to destroy their facilities, it will still cause a shitstorm, arguably much more than if they managed to develop nukes, because then things would be more "ok then, you've got your big stick, i've got mines, fair enough"

People always cry about how bad nuclear bombs are, fact is, those things create peace. Without nukes there would have been a World War III, IV, V and so on in that.... order.

No, I said I haven't heard of the UK threatening to nuke anyone and the US hasn't either. In fact neither has Israel, the only threats being made, by Israel in particular, are of a conventional nature, not nuclear. Nukes only prevent large scale wars, they don't prevent small scale or proxies e.g the US didn't go in and nuke Afghanistan after 9/11 because it was attacked. As far as peace is concerned, what Iran is doing will worsen the situation in the ME, not improve it. Remember that this is a country run by leaders who pretty much hate the west and persistently defy any rules set down by an international committee. If Iran has a significant nuclear stockpile, you're likely to have a situation with Israel based on a hair trigger. It'd be the US vs the USSR on a small scale.

Mekstizzle wrote:

Not threatening to nuke obviously, but the threats of invasion is still there. Especially since countries have been fucking around with Iran for most of the 20th and 21st century now, and especially since countries have been invading their neighbours and now they're surrounded. Include the fact that Israel have nukes, and it's just no surprise that they want nukes.

If Iraq had nukes, do you think there would ever be a chance that we would have invaded them. Hell no, the casualties of them using nukes on invading forces would be massive, even if it would fuck them up too, the WMD thing was BS, if they really had WMD's there's no way we'd have risked casualties in the hundreds of thousands like that. That alone would have deterred any invasion and literally forced other countries to sit down and not do anything stupid. That's probably the logic Iran wants too, you're almost guaranteed not to be invaded by anyone on a large scale if you have nukes. Has a country with Nukes ever been properly invaded?

Tensions would be high but the actual threat of war would be much lower.

Let's be fair here. They were the ones that took American hostages. Our failed rescue attempt was in reaction to that. We weren't the ones that jacked up oil prices via OPEC in the 70s, they were. They are by no means innocent.

Unless Iran is exporting a hot commodity that I am not aware of. Where will they get the money? Joe Camel Bucks, maybe!?!?

I say they will bankrupt themselves on being foolish

Dilbert_X wrote:

MOAB wrote:

In fact neither has Israel, the only threats being made, by Israel in particular, are of a conventional nature, not nuclear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

Remember that this is a country run by leaders who pretty much hate the west and persistently defy any rules set down by an international committee.

You're talking about Israel now?

Wiki wrote:

The Samson Option is a term used to describe Israel’s alleged deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a “last resort” against nations whose military attacks threaten its existence, and possibly against other targets as well.

Israel isn't very big, and its surrounded by potential enemies. They'd be pretty daft not to have that option. Is Iran in the same situation? No, although its gradually putting itself in that position.

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2009-12-03 18:51:46)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Israel isn't very big, and its surrounded by potential enemies.

Not a smart place to found a nation.

Is Iran in the same situation?

Iran has seen Afganistan and Iraq invaded by a nuclear power, they'd be mad not to want some kind of defence.

Israel's around for the long haul, deal with it.

Funnily enough, back in the 80's when the US engaged Iranian vessels in the PG they didn't launch some massive invasion. Gasp. They're even far more unlikely to do it today. Also what Iran has being doing the past few years has made it a more susceptible target.

Another tidbit to nibble on, why did Iraq want the bomb? Gonna be invaded by the US?

FEOS wrote:

Iran doesn't want the bomb for defensive reasons. They want it for leverage in the region. To be the preeminent power in the ME. That's why the GCC doesn't want them to have it. It has fuckall to do with the US...or Israel, for that matter.

yeah, yeah. iran isn't bothered by the fact their neighbouring nations got invaded and wtfpwned, not at all. they just want to have a larger dick.
/facepalm

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Iran doesn't want the bomb for defensive reasons. They want it for leverage in the region. To be the preeminent power in the ME. That's why the GCC doesn't want them to have it. It has fuckall to do with the US...or Israel, for that matter.

yeah, yeah. iran isn't bothered by the fact their neighbouring nations got invaded and wtfpwned, not at all. they just want to have a larger dick.
/facepalm

/facepalm

Iran's been going after this for longer than 8 years, Sparky.

orly? usa & co have been meddling with middle east for how long exactly? oh, nevermind "meddling", do you remember when the first gulf war happened? iran's been awfully late with their nuclear program, dipshit.

FEOS wrote:

And just ignore the whole GCC part while you're at it.

oh, for fucks sake. who the fuck cares about that? what will you bring next: un? red cross?

Of course rules mean bugger all. You expect people to just accept that five countries can rule the world, via the Security Council and the fact that they shall be the only countries allowed to have nukes? Come on now, don't be daft. The rules themselves are stupid, so of course you're going to get countries like Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India and North Korea, probably some others that give a big fuck you to the rules.

The UN Security Council needs reform, as does the rules for Nuclear Weapons. The fact that a country like France, despite getting its arse completely kicked in WW2, was allowed to have a "Victors seat" as a "Major Power" in the UN Security council and given permanent membership, and then also allowed to then retain their empire despite being beaten to shit by Germany after WW2 (only to lose it after they lost all the colonial wars) just says everything about how the international stage is. It's all a big joke anyway. All a thin veil setup by countries so that they can try to retain as much power as possible

FEOS wrote:

Read a little about the history of Iran's nuclear program then come back to the adult's table. It's been around longer than Dinnerjacket.

orly? longer that Din..., well, whatever? so what? for how long exactly has their nuclear program been militarized for real, nevermind all the whining by usa, israel and co, do you know? go on, produce me a wikipedia or some other such reliable sorce's quote.

FEOS wrote:

You know, the organization of the Arab Persian Gulf states? It has something in place similar to NATO, called Peninsula Shield. Nothing at all like the Red Cross. Or the UN.

and this means what exactly? why the hell should iran bother with those loosers who hate their guts anyway?

FEOS wrote:

Again...educate yourself, then join the big kids for the debate when you're ready.

you can stick your so called "education" right to were sun doesn't shine, cpt. obvious. there's nothing in your "big kid's" post above i didn't know. but then again, that's besides the point completely. you said that iran's intentions to go nuclear have nothing to do with what usa & co have been doing in the middle east - that's just preposterous, and you know it.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Read a little about the history of Iran's nuclear program then come back to the adult's table. It's been around longer than Dinnerjacket.

orly? longer that Din..., well, whatever? so what? for how long exactly has their nuclear program been militarized for real, nevermind all the whining by usa, israel and co, do you know? go on, produce me a wikipedia or some other such reliable sorce's quote.

Read again. I'll go ahead and post the key piece for you, since you couldn't be bothered to read it the first time:

FEOS wrote:

Yes, it's Wikipedia. There are references at the bottom of the article. Click away.

look, dude, enough already. nobody here can really tell if and when iran nuclear program became militarized. end of story. we all know that this issue had been greatly escalated over the past decade, right? one doesn't need to be a genious to put two and two together and guess why. now, i'm not saying that usa & co adventures are the only reason for that - you on the other hand say that doen't matter at all.

FEOS wrote:

It's a matter of key players in the region taking issue with Iran trying to get nukes, ie, it's not just the US and Israel (and France and Germany and China and Russia and...).

exactly. it's precisely because those you mentioned - US and Israel (and France and Germany and China and Russia and...) - are major players in the region, and because of the methods some of them use, that iran's trying to get nukes. the time for plesantries had long gone, so, GCC or whatever, iran seems to not be giving a damn, and i don't blame them.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

you said that iran's intentions to go nuclear have nothing to do with what usa & co have been doing in the middle east

I never said they have nothing to do with it...

orly?

FEOS wrote:

Iran doesn't want the bomb for defensive reasons.

huh?

FEOS wrote:

If you already knew all that stuff, then why did your post read like you'd never heard of any of that stuff before?

because it has nothing to do with what i'm trying to point out, huh?

Last edited by Shahter (2009-12-07 06:15:08)

FEOS wrote:

Iran would be trying to get nukes if there were no Western powers involved in the ME.

i agree. it's a fucking no brainer, man - in the world we live in today it is better to have nukes than not to have them, or do you disagree with that?

FEOS wrote:

Iran wants to be the dominant power in the ME, period.

right...

FEOS wrote:

The quickest way for them to accomplish that is to become the sole "declared" nuclear power.

"sole declared power"? whatever happened to pakistan?

FEOS wrote:

There are other players of interest to Iran in the region, other powers that Iran wants to exert their influence over (and I'm not even talking about Israel). It's not about the US specifically.

aye aye, cpt. obvious, i agree.

FEOS wrote:

TBH, it's not at all clear what you're trying to point out.

/sigh. okay, let me make this quite plain:
i specifically replied to the following statement

FEOS wrote:

Iran doesn't want the bomb for defensive reasons.

which is complete bullshit. as you undoubtedly know, there was only one incident in human history when nuclear weapons were used offencively - i'm sure i don't need to remind you which incident that was - but at that time there was only one nation in the world who had those weapons. today nukes are defencive weapons. period. end of story. no need to go any deeper, it's all right on the surface. oh, there is this one nation - a real shithole - which likes to make itself look like it's not affraid to use their nukes agains anybody who doesn't agree with its way of life. now that bravado we all like very much - it goes for a lot of lulz.

now, ask yourself, oh incredibly educated one - who would iran need to defend itself from? answer me this and then go googling stuff, reading wikipedia and whatnot, posting links here - all while calling yourself a "big kid" - i'll happily read all that, i promise.

Shahter wrote:

which is complete bullshit. as you undoubtedly know, there was only one incident in human history when nuclear weapons were used offencively - i'm sure i don't need to remind you which incident that was - but at that time there was only one nation in the world who had those weapons. today nukes are defencive weapons. period. end of story. no need to go any deeper, it's all right on the surface. oh, there is this one nation - a real shithole - which likes to make itself look like it's not affraid to use their nukes agains anybody who doesn't agree with its way of life. now that bravado we all like very much - it goes for a lot of lulz.

now, ask yourself, oh incredibly educated one - who would iran need to defend itself from? answer me this and then go googling stuff, reading wikipedia and whatnot, posting links here - all while calling yourself a "big kid" - i'll happily read all that, i promise.

Its not so much Iran dropping a bomb, its them handing out the materials to groups who would use a bomb, i.e. a terrorist group, which Iran has a habit of financing and supplying. Its not out of the question either, because Pakistani scientists have sold technology to these groups before. You've got Iran and its older generation, which includes its government, wanting rid of Israel. Iran has been sabre rattling for a long time now, just as Russia did not too long ago with the whole 'its an offensive defensive shield' fiasco. Dinnerjacket likes to be the rebel, he does it on purpose, he likes to be defiant. Problem is he is being defiant over the wrong subject, because having a nuclear bomb is not something just anybody should have, regardless of whether its 'unfair'. What need does Iran have for a nuke? Do they think that having one would prevent the Israelis launching an attack if they wanted to? Fact of the matter is, what they are doing is improving the liklihood of an Israeli attack on their nuclear facilities. Same thing happened in Iraq back in the 80's and the Iraqi's didn't do shit about it afterwards.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

So if Iran did nuke Israel, they wouldn't have fear of a retaliation via nukes?

If the leaders are crazy enough they could nuke Israel and even if it wastes their military like the Japanese did they would still consider it mission accomplished right?

If Iran nuked Israel it would be the last thing they ever did, because if they weren't nuked in return, they'd get their arse handed to them by the rest of the world conventionally.

All Iran's nuclear program has done is create further unease in the ME and international distrust. Its not going to do jack for stability in the region. If Iran gets the bomb, you can be sure they'll be waving it around like they've been doing with their long range missiles.