Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 8

 

Poll

Is Iran pursuing Nuclear Technology for Weapons?

Yes78%78% - 84
No21%21% - 23
Total: 107
2007-01-15 23:55:19
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6879|132 and Bush

ThomasMorgan wrote:

SpaceApollyon wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I worry about who they will give the weapons to. Iran has a history of supplying weapons to third party unstable organizations.
That right there is the problem! If they can keep them under lock and key, they have the same right as the US to have them in their arsenal. But as Kmarion said...
We've shared our nuclear secrets with other nations.

Also, like I said, the US is the only nation to actually detonate a nuclear device with the intent of causing death and destruction.  No other nation has even come close to doing that, yet somehow we're the ones worried about other countries using nuclear weapons.

It's no different than committing a crime, acknowledging and validating your crime, but then not allowing other people to do it.  It's a double standard.
Again it's not only the US that is worried.

Your argument is really based on a playground mentality. The whole idea of "well he started it" just does not work when you are talking about weapons that could destroy the entire planet. What the US did in the past should not dictate what we accept in the future. I understand what your are trying to say, and yes I agree it is a double standard. But we owe it to the future of mankind to take steps in the right direction to ensure that a Nuclear threat is buried deep in the past. Allowing more and more nations to become nuclear powers will surely lead to the destruction of humanity given the violent past it has had over the last 650k years.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-15 23:56:08)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-01-15 23:58:11
notorious
Nay vee, bay bee.
+1,396|7025|The United Center

arabeater wrote:

ThomasMorgan wrote:

arabeater wrote:


Dont even start to bitch about the US using nukes against Japan being wrong. If we hadnt used them we wouldve lost a cubic ass-ton of troops invading Mainland Japan. So you see not much of an option there at all.
Oh Jesus.  Shut up.  This is as much of a response as you'll get out of me after a post like that.
OMG. What are you talking about? Its ok man, you dont have to say anything else. Its obvious where you stand.
...and it's biased ignoramuses like yourself why I tend to stay out of the D&ST section of the forums.  Not once did I mention (or bitch, as you so subtly put it) about whether or not it was wrong that the US used nuclear arms against Japan.  All I said is that we are the only nation to actually use the weapons in a wartime situation.
2007-01-15 23:58:39
arabeater
Do you have any idea how fooking busy I am?
+49|6959|Colorado Springs, CO

SpaceApollyon wrote:

arabeater wrote:

SpaceApollyon wrote:

That right there is the problem! If they can keep them under lock and key, they have the same right as the US to have them in their arsenal. But as Kmarion said...
Are you really gonna believe in Irans security that much dude? I sure hope not.
Wha??? Thats just what I said!
I'll rephrase: Also I - like Kmarion - do not trust them to keep their nukes just for themselves.
Ohhhhhhhh! Sorry dude i'm a little slow right now. Been up for a minute.
2007-01-16 00:01:11
notorious
Nay vee, bay bee.
+1,396|7025|The United Center

Kmarion wrote:

ThomasMorgan wrote:

SpaceApollyon wrote:


That right there is the problem! If they can keep them under lock and key, they have the same right as the US to have them in their arsenal. But as Kmarion said...
We've shared our nuclear secrets with other nations.

Also, like I said, the US is the only nation to actually detonate a nuclear device with the intent of causing death and destruction.  No other nation has even come close to doing that, yet somehow we're the ones worried about other countries using nuclear weapons.

It's no different than committing a crime, acknowledging and validating your crime, but then not allowing other people to do it.  It's a double standard.
Again it's not only the US that is worried.

Your argument is really based on a playground mentality. The whole idea of "well he started it" just does not work when you are talking about weapons that could destroy the entire planet. What the US did in the past should not dictate what we accept in the future. I understand what your are trying to say, and yes I agree it is a double standard. But we owe it to the future of mankind to take steps in the right direction to ensure that a Nuclear threat is buried deep in the past. Allowing more and more nations to become nuclear powers will surely lead to the destruction of humanity given the violent past it has had over the last 650k years.
And I understand what you're trying to say, but don't say "what the US did in the past should not dictate what we accept in the future".  I could say the same thing about Iran.

Do I actually want Iran to develop nuclear technology?  No, of course not.  But the way the US (and its citizens) is handling it right now is incorrect.
2007-01-16 00:07:32
arabeater
Do you have any idea how fooking busy I am?
+49|6959|Colorado Springs, CO

ThomasMorgan wrote:

arabeater wrote:

ThomasMorgan wrote:


Oh Jesus.  Shut up.  This is as much of a response as you'll get out of me after a post like that.
OMG. What are you talking about? Its ok man, you dont have to say anything else. Its obvious where you stand.
...and it's biased ignoramuses like yourself why I tend to stay out of the D&ST section of the forums.  Not once did I mention (or bitch, as you so subtly put it) about whether or not it was wrong that the US used nuclear arms against Japan.  All I said is that we are the only nation to actually use the weapons in a wartime situation.
Ok, true you never did directly state your opinion about it but the way you stated it made it seem like you were criticizing the US for using them. It is true that we are the only country to use them in wartime situation but rest assured we will only use them as a last resort. Do you think that if and when Iran gets ahold of a nuke that they would only use it as a deterrent weapon rather than a offensive one?
2007-01-16 00:08:30
SpaceApollyon
Scratch where it itches
+41|6798|Finland

ThomasMorgan wrote:

SpaceApollyon wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I worry about who they will give the weapons to. Iran has a history of supplying weapons to third party unstable organizations.
That right there is the problem! If they can keep them under lock and key, they have the same right as the US to have them in their arsenal. But as Kmarion said...
We've shared our nuclear secrets with other nations.

Also, like I said, the US is the only nation to actually detonate a nuclear device with the intent of causing death and destruction.  No other nation has even come close to doing that, yet somehow we're the ones worried about other countries using nuclear weapons.

It's no different than committing a crime, acknowledging and validating your crime, but then not allowing other people to do it.  It's a double standard.
Here's how I see it:

Utopia: nobody has 'the bomb', nobody can use the bomb.
and there will be world peace. When hell freezes over.

Currently: armies with (stable) leadership have the bomb. Mutual destruction and a balance of fear and all 
                that... No one dares to use the bomb.
This I can live with.

Future: small fanatical organizations have the bomb. For example: religion >> rationality!
If we need to have double standards for preventing that becoming the reality, so be it!
2007-01-16 00:10:14
notorious
Nay vee, bay bee.
+1,396|7025|The United Center

arabeater wrote:

ThomasMorgan wrote:

arabeater wrote:


OMG. What are you talking about? Its ok man, you dont have to say anything else. Its obvious where you stand.
...and it's biased ignoramuses like yourself why I tend to stay out of the D&ST section of the forums.  Not once did I mention (or bitch, as you so subtly put it) about whether or not it was wrong that the US used nuclear arms against Japan.  All I said is that we are the only nation to actually use the weapons in a wartime situation.
Ok, true you never did directly state your opinion about it but the way you stated it made it seem like you were criticizing the US for using them. It is true that we are the only country to use them in wartime situation but rest assured we will only use them as a last resort. Do you think that if and when Iran gets ahold of a nuke that they would only use it as a deterrent weapon rather than a offensive one?
Well, on one hand, one can only hope.

...on the other hand, yes, I do.  I think that with the current state the world is in now, that it would be foolish for any country (or organization) to detonate a nuclear weapon.  If one weapon is fired, it can only be assumed the target nation would retaliate in a similar manner.  Like I said, mutually assured global destruction.
2007-01-16 00:12:15
notorious
Nay vee, bay bee.
+1,396|7025|The United Center

SpaceApollyon wrote:

ThomasMorgan wrote:

SpaceApollyon wrote:


That right there is the problem! If they can keep them under lock and key, they have the same right as the US to have them in their arsenal. But as Kmarion said...
We've shared our nuclear secrets with other nations.

Also, like I said, the US is the only nation to actually detonate a nuclear device with the intent of causing death and destruction.  No other nation has even come close to doing that, yet somehow we're the ones worried about other countries using nuclear weapons.

It's no different than committing a crime, acknowledging and validating your crime, but then not allowing other people to do it.  It's a double standard.
Here's how I see it:

Utopia: nobody has 'the bomb', nobody can use the bomb.
and there will be world peace. When hell freezes over.

Currently: armies with (stable) leadership have the bomb. Mutual destruction and a balance of fear and all 
                that... No one dares to use the bomb.
This I can live with.

Future: small fanatical organizations have the bomb. For example: religion >> rationality!
If we need to have double standards for preventing that becoming the reality, so be it!
...but it will happen.  We're not preventing it, we're postponing it, and in the process we're pissing off hundreds of thousands of people, giving them (in their minds) even more of a reason to develop and potentially use such technology.
2007-01-16 00:15:21
SpaceApollyon
Scratch where it itches
+41|6798|Finland

ThomasMorgan wrote:

...but it will happen.  We're not preventing it, we're postponing it, and in the process we're pissing off hundreds of thousands of people, giving them (in their minds) even more of a reason to develop and potentially use such technology.
I hear you. But if its going to happen anyways, then postponing it is the best action we can take. No?
2007-01-16 00:15:45
blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|6924
let them get their damn bomb maybe the'll shut up a bit its not like they are going to blow up the world by having it they believe in God too.
2007-01-16 00:18:19
notorious
Nay vee, bay bee.
+1,396|7025|The United Center

SpaceApollyon wrote:

ThomasMorgan wrote:

...but it will happen.  We're not preventing it, we're postponing it, and in the process we're pissing off hundreds of thousands of people, giving them (in their minds) even more of a reason to develop and potentially use such technology.
I hear you. But if its going to happen anyways, then postponing it is the best action we can take. No?
Postponing it in a way that won't stir the pot anymore than it already has been, yes.
2007-01-16 00:19:18
arabeater
Do you have any idea how fooking busy I am?
+49|6959|Colorado Springs, CO

ThomasMorgan wrote:

arabeater wrote:

ThomasMorgan wrote:


...and it's biased ignoramuses like yourself why I tend to stay out of the D&ST section of the forums.  Not once did I mention (or bitch, as you so subtly put it) about whether or not it was wrong that the US used nuclear arms against Japan.  All I said is that we are the only nation to actually use the weapons in a wartime situation.
Ok, true you never did directly state your opinion about it but the way you stated it made it seem like you were criticizing the US for using them. It is true that we are the only country to use them in wartime situation but rest assured we will only use them as a last resort. Do you think that if and when Iran gets ahold of a nuke that they would only use it as a deterrent weapon rather than a offensive one?
Well, on one hand, one can only hope.

...on the other hand, yes, I do.  I think that with the current state the world is in now, that it would be foolish for any country (or organization) to detonate a nuclear weapon.  If one weapon is fired, it can only be assumed the target nation would retaliate in a similar manner.  Like I said, mutually assured global destruction.
Hmmm...interesting opinion there, but I'm gonna have to disagree. I am not really scared of the Iranian government having the nuke, I am scared of the terror organization that offers to purchase one from them. True, Iran will not ever use a nuclear devise directly due to them being scared shitless of being wiped off the face of the Earth by a few tactical nukes from a couple of B-1's. Do you think that if Iran did possess a nuclear weapon they would offer to sell it to a terror group?
2007-01-16 00:25:40
notorious
Nay vee, bay bee.
+1,396|7025|The United Center

arabeater wrote:

ThomasMorgan wrote:

arabeater wrote:


Ok, true you never did directly state your opinion about it but the way you stated it made it seem like you were criticizing the US for using them. It is true that we are the only country to use them in wartime situation but rest assured we will only use them as a last resort. Do you think that if and when Iran gets ahold of a nuke that they would only use it as a deterrent weapon rather than a offensive one?
Well, on one hand, one can only hope.

...on the other hand, yes, I do.  I think that with the current state the world is in now, that it would be foolish for any country (or organization) to detonate a nuclear weapon.  If one weapon is fired, it can only be assumed the target nation would retaliate in a similar manner.  Like I said, mutually assured global destruction.
Hmmm...interesting opinion there, but I'm gonna have to disagree. I am not really scared of the Iranian government having the nuke, I am scared of the terror organization that offers to purchase one from them. True, Iran will not ever use a nuclear devise directly due to them being scared shitless of being wiped off the face of the Earth by a few tactical nukes from a couple of B-1's. Do you think that if Iran did possess a nuclear weapon they would offer to sell it to a terror group?
Honestly, for the right price, I think many of our allies would sell nuclear weapons to a terrorist organization, not to mention Iran.

That's why I said it would be foolish for any country (or organization) to make use of a nuclear weapon.  Doing so ensures imminent death for all of those involved and many of those who weren't.

Think of it this way: Iran gets a nuke.  Iran sells the nuke to (insert terrorist group here). Terrorist group detonates nuclear weapon in US (doesn't even need to be a major city).  Americans are furious, US allies realize the danger in allowing this to happen.  If the terrorist group cannot be found or persecuted, then we would turn to Iran, the nation that allowed all of this to happen in the first place.  Although I would disagree with it, it wouldn't be that out of line for the US to nuke Iran in retaliation for selling the nuke that eventually was used to attack us.
2007-01-16 00:33:01
arabeater
Do you have any idea how fooking busy I am?
+49|6959|Colorado Springs, CO

ThomasMorgan wrote:

arabeater wrote:

ThomasMorgan wrote:


Well, on one hand, one can only hope.

...on the other hand, yes, I do.  I think that with the current state the world is in now, that it would be foolish for any country (or organization) to detonate a nuclear weapon.  If one weapon is fired, it can only be assumed the target nation would retaliate in a similar manner.  Like I said, mutually assured global destruction.
Hmmm...interesting opinion there, but I'm gonna have to disagree. I am not really scared of the Iranian government having the nuke, I am scared of the terror organization that offers to purchase one from them. True, Iran will not ever use a nuclear devise directly due to them being scared shitless of being wiped off the face of the Earth by a few tactical nukes from a couple of B-1's. Do you think that if Iran did possess a nuclear weapon they would offer to sell it to a terror group?
Honestly, for the right price, I think many of our allies would sell nuclear weapons to a terrorist organization, not to mention Iran.

That's why I said it would be foolish for any country (or organization) to make use of a nuclear weapon.  Doing so ensures imminent death for all of those involved and many of those who weren't.

Think of it this way: Iran gets a nuke.  Iran sells the nuke to (insert terrorist group here). Terrorist group detonates nuclear weapon in US (doesn't even need to be a major city).  Americans are furious, US allies realize the danger in allowing this to happen.  If the terrorist group cannot be found or persecuted, then we would turn to Iran, the nation that allowed all of this to happen in the first place.  Although I would disagree with it, it wouldn't be that out of line for the US to nuke Iran in retaliation for selling the nuke that eventually was used to attack us.
I highly doubt any of our allies are in need of money that bad to have to sell a nuke to a terror group. Or at least I hope not. If so then we need to re-evaluate our "allies".

Yea I agree with you here. Thats pretty much the only reason I can find that says Iran wont sell a nuke to a terror group, but then again from what i've personally seen in Iraq they dont really value their lives too much to care about any US retaliation. Hell they may be looking for it to help boost a global jihad or whatever. If they are willing to strap a vest full of C4 to their chest and blow up a bus full of kids then I doubt if they're too concerned about any sort of retaliation. Thats what scares me about the religious fanatics in the ME. Thats why I am scared of them possessing such a weapon.
2007-01-16 00:35:27
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|6995
Wow... i just browsed through this and read some of the most ignorant statements i have ever seen by TMorgan...  you dont have a clue... lol            The US has nukes... well duhh so should Iran...  incredible logic at work there...
Love is the answer
2007-01-16 00:36:28
notorious
Nay vee, bay bee.
+1,396|7025|The United Center

arabeater wrote:

ThomasMorgan wrote:

arabeater wrote:


Hmmm...interesting opinion there, but I'm gonna have to disagree. I am not really scared of the Iranian government having the nuke, I am scared of the terror organization that offers to purchase one from them. True, Iran will not ever use a nuclear devise directly due to them being scared shitless of being wiped off the face of the Earth by a few tactical nukes from a couple of B-1's. Do you think that if Iran did possess a nuclear weapon they would offer to sell it to a terror group?
Honestly, for the right price, I think many of our allies would sell nuclear weapons to a terrorist organization, not to mention Iran.

That's why I said it would be foolish for any country (or organization) to make use of a nuclear weapon.  Doing so ensures imminent death for all of those involved and many of those who weren't.

Think of it this way: Iran gets a nuke.  Iran sells the nuke to (insert terrorist group here). Terrorist group detonates nuclear weapon in US (doesn't even need to be a major city).  Americans are furious, US allies realize the danger in allowing this to happen.  If the terrorist group cannot be found or persecuted, then we would turn to Iran, the nation that allowed all of this to happen in the first place.  Although I would disagree with it, it wouldn't be that out of line for the US to nuke Iran in retaliation for selling the nuke that eventually was used to attack us.
I highly doubt any of our allies are in need of money that bad to have to sell a nuke to a terror group. Or at least I hope not. If so then we need to re-evaluate our "allies".

Yea I agree with you here. Thats pretty much the only reason I can find that says Iran wont sell a nuke to a terror group, but then again from what i've personally seen in Iraq they dont really value their lives too much to care about any US retaliation. Hell they may be looking for it to help boost a global jihad or whatever. If they are willing to strap a vest full of C4 to their chest and blow up a bus full of kids then I doubt if they're too concerned about any sort of retaliation. Thats what scares me about the religious fanatics in the ME. Thats why I am scared of them possessing such a weapon.
Yes but the religious fanatics who are blowing themselves up are far different than the people running the countries.  If a suicide bomber blows himself up, then it's considered an honor and is a morale boost to his countrymen.  If a leader gets himself and his country blown up, well, there aren't any other countrymen to receive a morale boost.

...and like I said, for the right price, I wouldn't be surprised to see nuclear weapons pried out of the arms of some of our allies.  You'd be surprised how far you can get in this world with money, power, and influence.
2007-01-16 00:39:00
notorious
Nay vee, bay bee.
+1,396|7025|The United Center

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Wow... i just browsed through this and read some of the most ignorant statements i have ever seen by TMorgan...  you dont have a clue... lol            The US has nukes... well duhh so should Iran...  incredible logic at work there...
Wow.  Apparently you didn't actually read those posts then since you missed the point I was making.

Incredible literacy at work there...

Edited for a typo.

Last edited by ThomasMorgan (2007-01-16 00:41:07)

2007-01-16 00:54:19
BVC
Member
+325|6974
I don't believe so, but accept that I could be wrong.

- Israel is home to a number of sites which are holy to both Judaism and Islam.  Why would Iran nuke Islamic holy sites?
- Iranians are quite religious types, and theres a fatwa (religious decree) against nuclear weapons.
- Their stated reasons for pursuing nuclear energy ARE rational; they need the energy for their 70 million people and don't want to burn oil which they could instead be selling at a profit.
- They HAVE co-operated with the IAEA as much as they are obligated to, more so at times.
- They ARE entitled to research and pursue nuclear technology under the terms of the NPT, of which they are signatories.
2007-01-16 01:00:46
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6879|132 and Bush

Pubic wrote:

I don't believe so, but accept that I could be wrong.

- Israel is home to a number of sites which are holy to both Judaism and Islam.  Why would Iran nuke Islamic holy sites?
- Iranians are quite religious types, and theres a fatwa (religious decree) against nuclear weapons.
- Their stated reasons for pursuing nuclear energy ARE rational; they need the energy for their 70 million people and don't want to burn oil which they could instead be selling at a profit.
- They HAVE co-operated with the IAEA as much as they are obligated to, more so at times.
- They ARE entitled to research and pursue nuclear technology under the terms of the NPT, of which they are signatories.
You do realize Iran had the IAEA removed?

A.Q. Khan
Makes me sick
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world … n/khan.htm
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050214/

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-16 01:03:42)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-01-16 01:00:56
beerface702
Member
+65|6971|las vegas
DUH!

of course he is

but he also likes to rattle that saber i think a bit like saddam did aswell. so who know's if they would ever actually use them


i mean im all for other countries having the right to power there homes, or protect their lands with weapons like that. if the adminstration is sane enough to do it.

he isnt
2007-01-16 01:09:52
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6834
Short answer: yes, long answer: yes definitely.

Put yourself in Iran's position: the US announced it was part of an 'Axis of Evil', given that it was possessed of much oil, had an unfriendly government and are an arch nemesis of the USA's remote controllers: state terrorists Israel. If I was Iran I'd be goddamned sure to start work asap on nuclear weapons. Kim Jong Il proved that it makes you untouchable and strategically they could pull it off given that Russia and China are 'silent' allies of Iran and the fact that their oil reserves give them an impressive amount of leverage internationally.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-16 02:05:32)

2007-01-16 01:38:48
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6950|UK
Yes.

To negate the impending US threat and/or eventual invasion.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2007-01-16 10:06:19
Colfax
PR Only
+70|6922|United States - Illinois

ThomasMorgan wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ThomasMorgan wrote:

Honestly, who the fuck cares?  Since when is it perfectly fine for the US (the only country to ever actually use a nuclear weapon in an attack, mind you) to research nuclear technology but as soon as another nation tries to, we get all nervous about it and demand they cease their actions?

The way I see it, let them do what they want.  One of the biggest reasons the US is hated in other nations is precisely because of things like this.  We act as though we run the world.  Does anyone else find it ironic how we preach democracy when we were never voted into being the world's ruler?

If they want to research nuclear power, so be it.  Hell, if they want to research nuclear weapons, be my guest.  We have them; why not everyone else?
You really can't see the problem with everyone having nuclear weapons.. realllly?..lol
Forget about the fact Iran is threating to wipe the earth free of western society. But were not supposed to take him seriously.
No.  Cold War all over again.  Or mutually assured global destruction.
You mentality is completely flawed.  This is not a cold war situation.  Iran supports terrorism in Iraq it has been proven.  So Iran gives nukes to terrorists and they use them.  There is no mutually assured destruction because terrorists only see destruction.  Iran gets nukes and lets terrorists have them i give the world about 10 years before full out nuclear war.  You think 3,000 dead troops is bad.  Try all troops on the gorund in Iraq dead from a nuclea blast or with severe radiation poison.  100,000 plus.  Thats not including civilians.  Million plus.

So yeah let Iran have nukes....the blood of the world is in your hands
2007-01-16 11:41:57
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6798|Πάϊ

Kmarion wrote:

You really can't see the problem with everyone having nuclear weapons.. realllly?..lol
Forget about the fact Iran is threating to wipe the earth free of western society. But were not supposed to take him seriously.

You think he does, but why hide it then.. proxy maybe?
I can't see that "problem" either. Please explain...

The way I see it, the moment a second country acquired nukes they ceased to be a threat. With that in mind, the more countries have them, the better in terms of stability.


Look at our current situation for example. NK (probably because you never know) has nukes, and Iran does not. Who does the US fuck with? Why? Because they're not afraid.

On the other hand, NK (and similar small states) can never be a threat to the US either, because if they decide to actually use nukes, they would be annihilated within seconds by a single blow. Result? The US (although still massively superior) approach NK much more cautiously and diplomatically. And although Kim Jong Ihl (sp?) is probably insane, and his regime a lot worse than Saddam's, the prospect of war seems far away. Not that the latter situation is necessarily positive, but still... diplomacy coming first is a good thing in my book.

Now as far as Iran goes, please do not repeat such bullshit about them wanting to blow us all up etc. It is true that Ahmadinejad has adopted a relatively offensive stance to counter the admittedly over-offensive one of GWB, but that's as far as it goes (and in fact as you saw in another thread he is actually on the receiving end of criticism for his hard line toward the US).
ƒ³
2007-01-16 11:56:15
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|6980|Little Rock, Arkansas
Yes, they're developing nukes. Yes, it scares the hell out of me.

I'm not afraid of the State of Iran launching a nuke at us. They don't have that ability. They might be able to smuggle some into the country and detonate them, but that's not my biggest worry.


My biggest worry is that they turn one over to Hizbollah. Or Islamic Jihad. Or any of the other wacko ultra-insane islamic religious groups that they train in their country. Hell, even if the government said no and some ultra-conserative wacko colonel was convinced by his crazy-assed imam to do it, the end game is the same. Either the US or Israel gets nuked.

I really don't want my country to be responsible for wiping an entire people off the face of the planet. That being said, I have the constitution for it. I believe in a retaliatory strike so overpowering, so complete that nothing is left of the offending country. Not a tree is left standing. I believe in killing all the rats just to be sure.

Iran really, really, REALLY doesn't need the bomb.

BTW, whats this shit about our allies selling someone the bomb? You really think one of the world's nuclear powers is going to willingly give up one of the diamonds that keeps them in the coolest club on the block?

Not to mention, we have a book with samples from the core of every reactor ever that gives the relative presance and amount of every little sub isotope in the nuclear fuel. If a bomb were to go off, we'd know where the uranium/plutonium came from as soon as we got a sample of the fallout to the right lab. And we'd retaliate with the thundering herds of zeus himself, and bring down death and destruction the likes of which the world has never seen.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard