After the cold war, being told I should be worried about Iran is laughable.
Poll
Does a Nuclear (Weaponized) Iran worry you?
| Yes | 33% | 33% - 11 | ||||
| No | 60% | 60% - 20 | ||||
| Maybe (Explain) | 6% | 6% - 2 | ||||
| Total: 33 | ||||||
there's got to be a bogey-man, somewhere
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
The concern I have with Iran having weaponized nukes is proliferation, just as with nK. Iran proliferated other weaponry in support of their foreign policy objectives, which are at odds with many of the Western world and GCC's (not just the US). While a nuclear detonation from a proliferated device would surely be traced back to Iran eventually, that takes time. Time during which Iran could easily consolidate any gains that would contradict many other countries' interests (again, not just the US). This would make a meaningful response moot.
As to the Russia/propaganda tinfoil hat nonsense: that horse has been dead a while now. No need to beat it any more.
As to the Russia/propaganda tinfoil hat nonsense: that horse has been dead a while now. No need to beat it any more.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
FEOS wrote:
As to the Russia/propaganda tinfoil hat nonsense: that horse has been dead a while now. No need to beat it any more.
Does a nuclear Iran worry me - sure, why not? Any country in possession of weapons that can decimate mass amounts of life should worry everyone. Practically speaking, militarily Iran has a fairly moderate regime, especially in comparison to some of the other nuclear powers. The government is somewhat stable, they seem to be worried enough about their own existence not to start producing, equipping and lobbing nukes all over the place. You definitely won't find me flipping over my bathtub and practicing fallout drills any time soon.
The push for nuclear weapons is a perceived power move in the international community. It's kind of lost it's luster as a perceived increase in power/influence due to all the regional and multinational defense pacts and trade agreements going on nowadays. I'm more worried about the idea of a rogue state or an unstable regime selling nuclear material to the highest bidder and the waning effectiveness of the NPT and other nuclear treaties.
The push for nuclear weapons is a perceived power move in the international community. It's kind of lost it's luster as a perceived increase in power/influence due to all the regional and multinational defense pacts and trade agreements going on nowadays. I'm more worried about the idea of a rogue state or an unstable regime selling nuclear material to the highest bidder and the waning effectiveness of the NPT and other nuclear treaties.
it's not a matter of me liking or disliking him - it's a matter of historical facts. stalin was a leader russia needed at the moment - and, boy, did he deliver. do i like his methods? - hell no, i'm a human being ffs, just like you. but was there any other way? - no, there wasn't.Shocking wrote:
You see this is where it becomes a problem, I don't understand how people in Russia nowadays can actually like the guy.Shahter wrote:
no, he wasn't.Shocking wrote:
'the bullshit fed about the ussr'
like saying Stalin was a maniac? he was
let me ask you something: how the fuck do you think the bunch of yahoo's like bolsheviks gets to take a nation like russia? try to remember any analogy from before 1917. you can't? that's because nothing of the kind happened before then. dickheads like soviets only get to power under one condition - nobody else could, or rather everybody else tried and failed. stalin and his crew inherited a total disaster of a nation and managed to shape it into a superpower in a time frame never seen before, winning two wars in the process.
you can think what you want, but i have to tell you: stalin was an extraordinary leader who managed to deliver russia from the most dire straights imaginable. his methods were harsh, but the alternative was total annihilation. if it hadn't been for bolsheviks there wouldn't have been russia as we know it today - not in it's current borders and not in the position it holds in modern history.
ahem... we have completely derailed the thread. there goes:
nukes are bad, but the geenie is already out of the bottle. as time goes more and more nations will acquire nuclear weapons and by sticking their noses (and other parts) were they don't belong usa & co only fan the flames more. it's time to start worrying about how to live with nuclear iran and other nations as well - one way or another you'll have to. deal with it.
Last edited by Shahter (2011-05-20 03:28:31)
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Neither of the Bushes pressed the button, I doubt any Iranian would either.Jay wrote:
The terrifying part is if a nation falls into the hands of a fundamentalist madman who believes fervently that there is an afterlife and doesn't much care about what happens to this world. Or, a sadistic misanthrope with a fully decked out fallout shelter who just wants to watch the world burn a la Nero.
Fuck Israel
Didn't we have this same concern when the Soviet Union fell? I think it's a concern we associate with anyone who is not an ally tbh.FEOS wrote:
The concern I have with Iran having weaponized nukes is proliferation, just as with nK. Iran proliferated other weaponry in support of their foreign policy objectives, which are at odds with many of the Western world and GCC's (not just the US). While a nuclear detonation from a proliferated device would surely be traced back to Iran eventually, that takes time. Time during which Iran could easily consolidate any gains that would contradict many other countries' interests (again, not just the US). This would make a meaningful response moot.
As to the Russia/propaganda tinfoil hat nonsense: that horse has been dead a while now. No need to beat it any more.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Different concern. The USSR concern WRT proliferation was control--unintentional proliferation. The concern w/Iran is of the intentional sort.Kmar wrote:
Didn't we have this same concern when the Soviet Union fell? I think it's a concern we associate with anyone who is not an ally tbh.FEOS wrote:
The concern I have with Iran having weaponized nukes is proliferation, just as with nK. Iran proliferated other weaponry in support of their foreign policy objectives, which are at odds with many of the Western world and GCC's (not just the US). While a nuclear detonation from a proliferated device would surely be traced back to Iran eventually, that takes time. Time during which Iran could easily consolidate any gains that would contradict many other countries' interests (again, not just the US). This would make a meaningful response moot.
As to the Russia/propaganda tinfoil hat nonsense: that horse has been dead a while now. No need to beat it any more.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I'd be willing to bet there were some in the ex-soviet union willing with intent.. perhaps with different motive$ though.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Didn't the Russians try intentionally proliferating to Cuba?
Fuck Israel
Under Ahmadinejad? No.
Under someone else? Yes.
Under someone else? Yes.
noice 
under... say bush?KuSTaV wrote:
Under Ahmadinejad? No.
Under someone else? Yes.
An Iranian Bush President with the slow wit, quick temper, squinty eyes, messiah complex and other characteristics of Bush plus nuclear weapons squaring up to an American Bush President with the slow wit, quick temper, squinty eyes, messiah complex and other characteristics of Bushplus nuclear weapons is pretty much the nightmare scenario.
Clear now?
Clear now?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-05-23 02:37:25)
Fuck Israel
Don't recall Bush is Iranian.Dilbert_X wrote:
An Iranian Bush squaring up to an American Bush is pretty much the nightmare scenario.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
It's called a hypothetical scenario War Man...
Kinda like there being a god.Sturgeon wrote:
It's called a hypothetical scenario War Man...
Don't recall Bush actually doing such a thing unless USA got nuked themselves.Sturgeon wrote:
It's called a hypothetical scenario War Man...
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
So, hypothetically, Bush is President for a third term (in contravention of the Constitution) and has been cloned and also placed in charge of Iran?
Awesome hypothetical. And by awesome, I mean stupid as a bag of hammers.
Awesome hypothetical. And by awesome, I mean stupid as a bag of hammers.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Israel has Nuclear weapons! Thats a threat to humanity!
There is no proof they have nukes, just a theory.venom6 wrote:
Israel has Nuclear weapons! Thats a threat to humanity!
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
of course they have, the same with the leaders here saying we don't have American nukes. but we all know where they are. and lately wikileaks confirmed itWar Man wrote:
There is no proof they have nukes, just a theory.venom6 wrote:
Israel has Nuclear weapons! Thats a threat to humanity!
you're a hypotheticalSturgeon wrote:
It's called a hypothetical scenario War Man...
Fuck Israel
A very solid theory. Don't confuse proof with formal admission.War Man wrote:
There is no proof they have nukes, just a theory.venom6 wrote:
Israel has Nuclear weapons! Thats a threat to humanity!
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/countri … /nuke.html
After the United States discovered the Dimona reactor in 1960, U.S. nuclear specialists inspected Dimona every year from 1965 through 1969, looking for signs of nuclear weapon production. It is not clear what they found, but in 1968 the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reported to President Lyndon Johnson its conclusion that Israel had already made an atomic bomb. In 1969, Israel limited inspection visits by U.S. scientists to such an extent that the Americans complained in writing. Without explanation, the Nixon administration ended the visits the following year.
The CIA continued to report on Israel's nuclear weapon progress during the 1970s. In a September 1974 memorandum, "Prospects for Further Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons," the CIA cited "Israeli acquisition of large quantities of uranium, partly by clandestine means" as further evidence that "Israel already has produced nuclear weapons." The CIA also cited Israeli missile development as evidence that Israel had made nuclear weapons--the CIA said the Jericho made little sense as a conventional missile and was "designed to accommodate nuclear warheads." In a February 1976 report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, CIA Deputy Director for Science and Technology Carl Duckett reported that Israel was already making bombs with plutonium produced in its Dimona reactor.
According to a detailed account contained in Time magazine, Israel assembled about a dozen bombs and readied them for use during the October 1973 Arab-Israeli war. The bombs could have been delivered by aircraft or missiles. In 1974, Israeli President Ephraim Katzir said that "it has always been our intention to develop a nuclear potential ... We now have that potential." This remark was followed five years later by a spectacular and still controversial event.
On September 22, 1979, an American "Vela" satellite detected a distinctive double flash off the southern coast of Africa. The satellite data, together with other information from U.S. intelligence sources, offered strong evidence that the flash had been caused by a low-yield nuclear explosion. Defense Department and State Department officials pointed out that this was only the 42nd time that a satellite of this type had registered such a signal; and in the first 41 cases, according to these officials, the Vela had correctly detected atmospheric nuclear tests. A State Department official later told the Washington Post: "Look, the Vela satellite picked up a signature like this 41 times before. In every one of those 41 instances, there was never any question about the fact that a nuclear test had taken place. Each of those 41 was undeniably a nuclear explosion. This was, too."
A 1979 CIA memorandum stated that "of all the countries which might have been responsible for the 22 September event, Israel would probably have been the only one for which a clandestine approach would have been virtually its only option." The CIA also observed that Israelis had participated in South African nuclear research during the preceding several years.
In June 1980, the CIA reported to the National Security Council that a 2-3 kiloton nuclear test had taken place at the time and place of the Vela reading, and that it had probably involved Israel and South Africa. However, a panel of scientific experts assembled by the Carter White House analyzed the technical data and concluded that the information was too ambiguous to prove that the event was a nuclear test.
In 1981, after Israeli planes destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor (also built by France), former Defense and Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan told the New York Times: "We do have the capacity to produce nuclear weapons, and if the Arabs are willing to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East, then Israel should not be too late in having nuclear weapons, too."
Israel's continuing need for imports was revealed in 1985, when Los Angeles businessman Richard Smyth was indicted for smuggling to Israel 810 krytrons, high-speed electronic switches used as nuclear weapon detonators. The krytrons were shipped between 1979 and 1983 to an Israeli firm under contract to the government for defense work. The Israeli Ministry of Defense returned only 469 of the krytrons, and Smyth vanished a week before he was to appear for trial. Records obtained by NBC News from Smyth's firm, Milco International, also showed that two related firms, Heli Trading and Milchan Brothers, both owned by Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan, ordered large quantities of missile-related equipment and materials between 1977 and 1982. Among the nuclear items listed were the 810 krytrons, plus neutron generators, high-speed oscilloscopes and high-voltage condensers.
Xbone Stormsurgezz