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

-Sh1fty- wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

-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.

So you're sure they won't use it? What if they're over confident?

Depends. They're most likely to give materials and tech or 'lose' a scientist or technician to a terrorist group, something like Hezbollah, who, because they already couldn't give two shits about civilians, would likely attempt to use a dirty bomb.

M.O.A.B wrote:

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.

a lot of nations, usa included, finance and supply groups of assorted "freedom fighters" others call "terrorists". i don't see how iran is so much worse in this aspect than anybody else.

M.O.A.B wrote:

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.

saying they want rid of israel and actually giving a dirty bomb to terrorists aren't one and the same.

M.O.A.B wrote:

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.

"fiasco"? well, go on, continue building the bloody shield and russia won't sign the agreement on the missiles and you'll have iskanders in kaliningrad region in no time.

M.O.A.B wrote:

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'.

who are you again to deside who should and who should not have nuclear bombs?

M.O.A.B wrote:

What need does Iran have for a nuke?

you must be pulling my leg there, dude. do i really need to explain this to you?

M.O.A.B wrote:

Do they think that having one would prevent the Israelis launching an attack if they wanted to?

i bet they do. and rightly so.

M.O.A.B wrote:

Fact of the matter is, what they are doing is improving the liklihood of an Israeli attack on their nuclear facilities.

after iran tests a nuke and a missile capable of delivering it to tel aviv israeli would attack them? really?

M.O.A.B wrote:

Same thing happened in Iraq back in the 80's and the Iraqi's didn't do shit about it afterwards.

iraq didn't do one principal thing - they didn't actually test a nuke.

anyway, all this fancy talk won't get us anywhere. the fact of the matter - we are not going to be able to keep this geenie corked forever. one way or another more nations are going to get nukes, this is inevitable. if we want to keep this shit under control we better stop yelling at each other and start working on something more productive.

Shahter wrote:

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?

Actually, I'd rather the damn things didn't exist at all.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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

right...

I know.

Shahter wrote:

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?

South Asia =/= Middle East

Shahter wrote:

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.

Then quit ignoring the obvious in your debate points.

Shahter wrote:

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.

Could you bring the "debate" up to a "serious talk" level, please?

Which "real shithole" would you be referring to? Is there a nation other than Iran that has threatened to eradicate another country (with nukes (or otherwise)) that I'm not aware of that is relevant to this discussion?

I didn't say Iran intended to use the bomb (as in 1500 degrees and windy in Tel Aviv). I said they didn't want it for defensive reasons--they are hardly altruistic. The bomb gives Iran a very large stick that they simply do not have right now and that no one other than Israel in the region would have a counter to, thus giving Iran massive leverage in the region--particularly when it comes to controlling the lines of communication in the Persian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz.

And as has been mentioned before, there is the concern of Iran proliferating the technology/weapons to terrorist groups, just as they have other advanced technology/weaponry.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

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?

Actually, I'd rather the damn things didn't exist at all.

you would? well i'm sure the great nation of usa would agree with you because that'll make it just about completely unstoppable. but nukes exist, and it's better to have them than not.

So you think Russia wouldn't be able to defend itself without nukes? Is your military really that shit at this point?

It's a moot point, regardless. They do exist, and the club is expanding. The problem is keeping the knuckleheads out.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

"sole declared power"? whatever happened to pakistan?

South Asia =/= Middle East

aha... so when you are speaking about "nations looking to gain influence in the region" it's okay to mention usa, russia, uk and whatnot, but when speaking about nuclear powers in the region pakistan does not count? oh well...

No. I was talking about ME nations seeking to gain increased influence in the ME.

Do try to keep up.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Then quit ignoring the obvious in your debate points.

why? this "obvious" has nothing to do with the point i'm debating.

And that's the sad part...because it actually has quite a bit to do with the point that we're debating.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Which "real shithole" would you be referring to?

n. korea, man. they are "teh eval commies" and with nukes, but are being continuosly fucked up regardless. still nobody is about to invade them, unlike iraq and afghanistan - tell me, why's that?

Because they are already contained...both via policy and via self-imposed reality (a la Cuba).

If nK had been hosting AQ, I'm sure we'd be in nK now instead of AFG. Iraq is a whole thing that would derail this thread epically.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I didn't say Iran intended to use the bomb (as in 1500 degrees and windy in Tel Aviv). I said they didn't want it for defensive reasons--they are hardly altruistic.
The bomb gives Iran a very large stick that they simply do not have right now and that no one other than Israel in the region would have a counter to, thus giving Iran massive leverage in the region--particularly when it comes to controlling the lines of communication in the Persian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz.

tell me again, what do usa or israel need nuclear weapons for?

The US: Holdover from the Cold War. You might remember that one. Same reason Russia (and former Russian states) has them.

Israel: Valid defensive purposes argument...hence their "ambiguous" position regarding nukes. Of all the countries in the ME, Israel is the only one who lives under an actual existential threat from multiple axes.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Actually, I'd rather the damn things didn't exist at all.

you would? well i'm sure the great nation of usa would agree with you because that'll make it just about completely unstoppable. but nukes exist, and it's better to have them than not.

So you think Russia wouldn't be able to defend itself without nukes?

against usa & co? no.

I think you underestimate your country's capabilities...or overestimate others'.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's a moot point, regardless. They do exist, and the club is expanding. The problem is keeping the knuckleheads out.

and let me guess: usa & co are to call out "knuckleheads", right?

If by "& co" you mean "Russia, China, France, and Britain", then yes.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

South Asia =/= Middle East

aha... so when you are speaking about "nations looking to gain influence in the region" it's okay to mention usa, russia, uk and whatnot, but when speaking about nuclear powers in the region pakistan does not count? oh well...

No. I was talking about ME nations seeking to gain increased influence in the ME.

there's no nation that woudn't seek to gain increased influence in one of the worlds most important strategic regions. not everybody has the balls and capabilities to do so, yeah, but pakintan certainly does. usa seems to be working on that though, and quite successfully.

Pakistan isn't trying to expand its influence in the Persian Gulf. It's rather occupied internally and eastward.

Those who can, do. Those who can't bitch about those who can.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

why? this "obvious" has nothing to do with the point i'm debating.

And that's the sad part...because it actually has quite a bit to do with the point that we're debating.

from your pov. all you have to do is back it up with arguments. when you do - we'll talk.

If you're the one (self-admittedly) ignoring the obvious in your arguments, why would I have to back up anything? You're the one ignoring the other powers in the region that Iran seeks to influence that aren't the US or Israel, yet you say it's obvious it's not just the US and Israel--but you keep saying it's just the US and Israel.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If nK had been hosting AQ, I'm sure we'd be in nK now instead of AFG.

you would invade a nuclear country the way you did with afghanistan? actually send troops in knowing they could be nuked? not in a thousand years.

1. nK wasn't a nuclear power in 2001.
2. having the ability to test a nuke and having the ability to reliably mate it with a delivery system and put it on target are two completely different situations.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The bomb gives Iran a very large stick that they simply do not have right now and that no one other than Israel in the region would have a counter to, thus giving Iran massive leverage in the region--particularly when it comes to controlling the lines of communication in the Persian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz.

usa already has control a lot of similar stuff - why shouldn't iran be allowed the same? because they are "knuckleheads"?

When has the US (or anyone other than Iran) threatened to shut down the Straits of Hormuz? Or threatened traffic in the PG in general?

Yes, because Iran is a bunch of knuckleheads.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

tell me again, what do usa or israel need nuclear weapons for?

The US: Holdover from the Cold War. You might remember that one.

why don't you dispose of them then? it costs a hell of a lot to maintain your nuclear stock, right?

Because the genie is out of the bottle. If your country and China were to get rid of theirs, we would probably get rid of ours. You gonna do that?

Didn't think so.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Israel: Valid defensive purposes argument...hence their "ambiguous" position regarding nukes. Of all the countries in the ME, Israel is the only one who lives under an actual existential threat from multiple axes.

again, who are you again to tell which claim of a defencive purpose is valid? ffs, you have just wtfpwned two middle eastern nations and now you tell me the rest of them have no reason to be conserned about their defence? lol.

That is such a /facepalm statement. We're back to your original argument that Iran is only pursuing nukes because of the US...when you've admitted that isn't the case. Come back when the voices start telling you a consistent story.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I think you underestimate your country's capabilities.

unlike you i actually know some people who serve or were serving in russian military untill it all went to hell. i've spoken to those, who fought in chechnia and s.ossetria and they told me quite a bit about the state of things in russian army. russia is certainly much tougher than anything usa and allies have been playing with yet, anybody who attacked it conventionally would be up to really hard time. but it's but a shadow of what it had been during soviet times and that's not about to change in forseeable future.

No argument there. But a shadow of what it was is still not a pushover.

Your presumption that I don't know people who serve or did serve in the Soviet/Russian military is interesting, considering you know fuckall about me.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

you would invade a nuclear country the way you did with afghanistan? actually send troops in knowing they could be nuked? not in a thousand years.

having the ability to test a nuke and having the ability to reliably mate it with a delivery system and put it on target are two completely different situations.

yeah yeah. but i'm quite sure that a mere possibility of a nuclear strike on invading forces would be enough to stop you.

Depends. However, the point is moot, as nK doesn't have the "mere possibility" of a nuclear strike on anything but a test site.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

why don't you dispose of them then? it costs a hell of a lot to maintain your nuclear stock, right?

Because the genie is out of the bottle.

exactly. that's why iran needs a nuke too. that's why everybody would want one ffs.

Need or want? Iran doesn't "need" a nuke. They "want" one. So they can have the biggest stick in the PG...again, that's why the GCC is so concerned about Iran getting nukes and why they said they would get their own if Iran does. Sounds just great, don't it?

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

We're back to your original argument that Iran is only pursuing nukes because of the US...when you've admitted that isn't the case.

i never admitted this wasn't the case.

Yes. You did. See your "capt obvious" comment.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Yes, because Iran is a bunch of knuckleheads.

i see. this settles it i guess so i won't bother replying to all the rest then - what's there to debate if they are knuckleheads? why speak about "powers in the region" and "defencive purposes" at all?
and what are you waiting for? iran certainly won't let usa have their way in middle east and, as they are just "a bunch of knuckleheads" won't listen to you. so go on, invade them asap, before they have a nuke to greet you with.

And why would we do that? There's no need to invade. All we need to do, should we decide to, is take out their nuclear facilities. That doesn't require an invasion.

Oh, that's right. You're Russian. Gotta remember what perspective you're coming from: "Diplomacy from the barrel of a gun"

Last edited by FEOS (2009-12-11 22:08:09)

So which war should America have not gotten into Dilbert Mr. President sir.

10 more little push pins went into a map...

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And why would we do that? There's no need to invade. All we need to do, should we decide to, is take out their nuclear facilities. That doesn't require an invasion.

It would be a war crime though.

By what law?

You throw around "war crime" as if you have half a fucking clue what that term actually means.

It's clear you don't.

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And why would we do that? There's no need to invade. All we need to do, should we decide to, is take out their nuclear facilities. That doesn't require an invasion.

It would be a war crime though.

By what law?

You throw around "war crime" as if you have half a fucking clue what that term actually means.

It's clear you don't.

According to the British AG it would have been illegal, and therefore a crime.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/c … 36072.html

This might help.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/pers … ebate.html

I usually despise opinion articles, but after finishing the rest of the paper I was stuck reading them and found one that was actually pretty interesting in that it provided facts that I didn't know. Iran and Venezuela are sticking pretty close together, that's rather obvious, and usually when countries stick together its for selfish reasons, but the reasons behind that weren't exactly the ones I was expecting. For example, Iranians occupy a surprisingly high number of high ranking positions in Chavez's government, and a supposed gold mine that neatly coincides with what could be the largest uranium find yet.

Wall Street Piece

Last edited by Commie Killer (2009-12-14 18:38:53)

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

So which war should America have not gotten into Dilbert Mr. President sir.

Most of South America - Which war was America in in "most of South America" again in the past 50 years?

Seriously.

Up the meds.

Dilbert is probably referring to the various cases of meddling with South American governments that went on during the Cold War and also things like Plan Colombia.