TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Nuclear weapon from Iran within a year
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Damerchi conveniently ignoring the fact that Israel doesn't meet such criteria as well. by your analogy Israel is holding an arsenal of guns without any recognized license. lots of countries have "moral character" that don't possess their own nukes. Canada, Iceland,Sweden, Finland, Norway, Australia etc. and countries like China(which i consider lacking moral character) are fully allowed nukes as they are a permanent member of the security council with veto. Its not about who is the most moral when it comes to nukes. you got the original 5 which put a balance to each other, 4 non npt members(Israel grouped with India, Pakistan, NK....how u like them apples.) oh and Israel is the only country with the balls to continually deny their stash. At least the Norks(Is that offensive?) are upfront about it to be honest.

The reason countries like Canada, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Norway or Australia dont posses nuclear weapons is because they dont need any. They live in constant peace.

And Israel never denied nor confirmed they have nuclear weapons.
They maintain a policy of nuclear ambiguity, although everybody knows they have them.
Not only does Israel have nuclear weapons, but they have about 400 warheads, which make Israel the 4th or 5th country in the world in terms of nuclear capabilities.

quote:

Originally posted by IlanG The reason countries like Canada, Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Norway or Australia dont posses nuclear weapons is because they dont need any. They live in constant peace. And Israel never denied nor confirmed they have nuclear weapons. They maintain a policy of nuclear ambiguity, although everybody knows they have them. Not only does Israel have nuclear weapons, but they have about 400 warheads, which make Israel the 4th or 5th country in the world in terms of nuclear capabilities.

you may think they might not need any, but in the case of nucleur war everyone feels a great deal of insecurity. That is why Nato supplies nukes to countries(through nuke weapons sharing) like the netherlands, belgium, and germany--which i would equate with the afore mentioned western nations in terms of a imminent threat from nuclear war.

True, Israel had maintained a policy of ambiguity, which is very shameless and irresponsible as it is not party to the NPT...there is no ceiling with Israel, they are above international law and pressure. The fact that it can do that and not receive any pressure from the US takes away any moral high ground that the US thinks they possess on the matter of nuclear weapons.

now I'm for the policy of nonproliferation, don't get me wrong. I just think there is a massive double standard in this situation the many tend to overlook.

world stockpiles have decreased greatly, and i hope this number will be brought down even more in the future.

Re: Nuclear weapon from Iran within a year

quote:

Originally posted by IlanG http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...200901415211260 Thoughts?

Getting back to the original thread, I think 09 is early but 10 is entirely possible.

The best thing to do would be to scour headlines back around 03 / 04 when the original predictions were made. It's my feeling that 10 or 15 was a target date and the issue promptly got forgoten after that.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo so you have more in common with them [Israel] than you do radical facist Islam?

I have more in common with Israel, thats why I said Iran should nuke them.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Damerchi conveniently ignoring the fact that Israel doesn't meet such criteria as well. by your analogy Israel is holding an arsenal of guns without any recognized license. lots of countries have "moral character" that don't possess their own nukes. Canada, Iceland,Sweden, Finland, Norway, Australia etc. and countries like China(which i consider lacking moral character) are fully allowed nukes as they are a permanent member of the security council with veto. Its not about who is the most moral when it comes to nukes. you got the original 5 which put a balance to each other, 4 non npt members(Israel grouped with India, Pakistan, NK....how u like them apples.) oh and Israel is the only country with the balls to continually deny their stash. At least the Norks(Is that offensive?) are upfront about it to be honest.

I'm not ignoring anything. If anybody is ignoring anything it's you as you acknowledge Israel's non participation in the NPT you ignore the fact that they are not obligated to anyone other than what they feel the need to disclose in privat to their allies not unlike the other two non parties India and Pakistan (as a matter of fact we have Pakistan's security codes)

Iran, however, is a signatory to the NPT and has repeatedly ignored their obligations to it. All that is being asked here of them, from the internnational community not just big bad Amerikkka i might add, is transparency. THAT'S ALL THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY IS ASKING. If their motives are what they claim then just live up to their obligations or go down the road the Norks went in '98 and withdraw from the treaty. They can't have it both ways.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo I'm not ignoring anything. If anybody is ignoring anything it's you as you acknowledge Israel's non participation in the NPT you ignore the fact that they are not obligated to anyone other than what they feel the need to disclose in privat to their allies not unlike the other two non parties India and Pakistan (as a matter of fact we have Pakistan's security codes) Iran, however, is a signatory to the NPT and has repeatedly ignored their obligations to it. All that is being asked here of them, from the internnational community not just big bad Amerikkka i might add, is transparency. THAT'S ALL THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY IS ASKING. If their motives are what they claim then just live up to their obligations or go down the road the Norks went in '98 and withdraw from the treaty. They can't have it both ways.

here's the thing, you stated that there are "standards of character" to attain nukes, I completely disagree....there is no council to say oh china is punishing any dissidents so no nukes for them. when the NPT came around whoever had nukes had nukes. anyone else that doesnt sign is detrimental to the entire purpose of nonproliferation, and should recieve pressure accordingly. Ambiguity is no excuse, it is still a rogue action. "atleast Israel is being honest in their disregard for global stability"...yeah-that makes it ok

withdrawing from the NPT(Iran) may initiate grounds for the next invasion in the so called war on terror or plenty of sanctions for Iran. Now look, as I said before I am for a NWFZ in the middle east, which includes both Iran and Israel-but Israel has maintained a Rogue presence on this matter and gets a shitload of military aid nonetheless..and unless they change their apathetic nature to the international community(plenty of UN resolutions calling for NWFZ in middle east in the disarmament), then i see no stability happening.

Who even cares what they are developing. Let them waste their time and money on some worthless nuclear weapons they can't even use. Who are they going to attack? Israel? An unprovoked nuclear attack on Israel would result in massive retaliation by the Israel, who probably has between 100 and 200 weapons, probably the majority of them thermonuclear. A nuclear exchange between a state with a few primitive devices against one that has been a nuclear power for decades with thermonuclear weapons would be suicide. Every major city and military complex in Iran would be gone within minutes of a launch against Israel.

The only other possible reason to have them would be a deterrent against an invasion by the US and they would be ineffective there also. Without a delivery vehicle that can reach the US the best they could do would be to drop a nuke on our troops on their own soil, not something most countries really want to do. Not to mention the fact that a nuclear attack against American troops would result in massive retaliation on a scale that would make the Israel scenario look like a walk in the park for the Iranians.

I guess the final scenario would be they give a weapon to terrorists, but the entire world would know where that weapon came from and retaliation would be swift and massive. All three scenarios result in the best case they waste billions of dollars building weapons they can't use and in the worst case the total and complete destruction of Iran. So I say let them build them if they want, better they spend their money on weapons they can't use than on weapons they can.

haha this is interesting...

Iran to Obama: You're willingness to talk proves your weakness:

quote:

US President Barack Obama's offer to talk to Iran shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed, the government spokesman said on Saturday. "This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency. "Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change," he added.

The significance of this isn't that they're using Obama's outreach to their own ends, it's that it shows how obsessed the regime is with the perception that it's winning its ideological battle with the west, to the extent that even rare attempts at rapprochement from the U.S. are sneered at as crude concessions of defeat. Like I've said before, that bodes very, very ill given how much national pride they've invested in the nuclear program. How can they make a deal with America to give up nukes when they've built their identity on defiance of America?
-Allahpundit

http://www.breitbart.com/article.ph...&show_article=1

Who cares if they have enough for one, when they have enough for two, then its a problem.

You have to test one, otherwise no one knows you have them. Unless you are Jewish. Then its just an abnormality off the coast of South Africa...

Also George W. Bush was the biggest failure to nuclear non-proliferation in history.

Look at N. Korea. They have a few nukes now and they are in a much more powerful position than they were before they did. Bush completely failed to prevent a much more rouge nation getting them and now every Tom, Dick, and Harry will want one if they feel they are no longer getting a fair seat at the international table.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss haha this is interesting... Iran to Obama: You're willingness to talk proves your weakness: The significance of this isn't that they're using Obama's outreach to their own ends, it's that it shows how obsessed the regime is with the perception that it's winning its ideological battle with the west, to the extent that even rare attempts at rapprochement from the U.S. are sneered at as crude concessions of defeat. Like I've said before, that bodes very, very ill given how much national pride they've invested in the nuclear program. How can they make a deal with America to give up nukes when they've built their identity on defiance of America? -Allahpundit http://www.breitbart.com/article.ph...&show_article=1

Nowhere did the spokesman say Obama's willingness to negotiate is weakness. They said Bush's policy of domination and confrontation is a failure, and clearly, it is. Obama now has to repair frayed relations with Russia, is just one example of the confrontational failure of the last administration and our need to realize conflict is not the 21st century way of foreign policy with other non-aggressive countries, Iran being one of them.

Ahh, yes, the IISS. Let's take a trip down memory lane with them:

quote:

Downing Street has described as "highly significant" a report from an independent think tank saying Iraq could produce a nuclear bomb within months. The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) says Saddam Hussein would first need to obtain supplies of radioactive material. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2245505.stm

Not that I completely discount the think tank on all issues, but I think we need to have a slight bit of caution when they yell about such warnings given their record in the past (not to mention other think tanks similar to them).

So this article states that by the end of 2009, Iran could possibly have enough uranium to make 1 bomb. Let me play devil's advocate for a second and ask if the IISS or anyone else has any verifiable evidence that Iran is, in fact, making a bomb, please submit it now. Because at this point I have yet to see actual evidence of this.

So it seems we have a continuation of low-enrichment uranium manufactured at a civilian IAEA-monitored facility, and we are to therefore concluded without any evidence pointing us towards the idea that such enrichment is for nuclear weaponry?

The IAEA is monitoring this, yes?

Iran has also made decent offers and concessions to place more restrictions on their program, i.e. opening it up for international participation:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04...ion/edzarif.php

I get the fact that Iran obtaining nukes is bad. But without concrete evidence supporting this assertion, is it really too much to ask that we consider not jumping the gun just for one fucking moment?

Because I'm a little fucking sick of one of the wars we got into based on a former Administration too damn eager to manipulate the intelligence and our fears. Call me weird, but I think we should be a little cautious before we decide to confront yet another country over there. Perhaps it would behoove us to have a wee bit more evidence first? Pretty fucking please?

quote:

Iran does not have key nuclear material WASHINGTON � Iran does not yet have any highly enriched uranium, the fuel needed to make a nuclear warhead, two top U.S. intelligence officials told Congress Tuesday, disputing a claim by an Israeli official. U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt. Gen. Michael Maples said Tuesday that Iran has only low-enriched uranium � which would need to be refined into highly enriched uranium before it can fuel a warhead. Neither officials said there were indications that refining has occurred. Their comments disputed a claim made last weekend by Israel's top intelligence military official, who said Iran has crossed a technical threshold and is now capable of producing atomic weapons. The claim made by Israeli Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin runs counter to estimates by U.S. intelligence that the earliest Iran could produce a weapon is 2010, with some analysts saying it is more likely that it is 2015. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090310...ligence_threats

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no, not at all. what i'm saying is that there are rules/laws and standards of character to be considered before letting someone posses firearms. nothing too different going on here.

Yet we're the only ones who have ever dropped TWO A-bombs on entire cities and civilian populations. Different debate entirely of course.

I understand what you mean, I don't want Iran or North Korea to have weapons of that sort, but we hardly set a nice example invading countries on false premises and given our past history with nuclear armament.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Call me weird, but I think we should be a little cautious before we decide to confront yet another country over there. Perhaps it would behoove us to have a wee bit more evidence first? Pretty fucking please?

Not to mention that with the current escalation in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq still a little ways away from fully winding down, it would put untold stress on our armed forces to act against Iran in any meaningful way.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Yet we're the only ones who have ever dropped TWO A-bombs on entire cities and civilian populations. Different debate entirely of course. I understand what you mean, I don't want Iran or North Korea to have weapons of that sort, but we hardly set a nice example invading countries on false premises and given our past history with nuclear armament.

Not to defend a nutso like Q5 but comparing the use of nuclear weapons when only the US had them to how the US might use them now when lots of countries have them is really pointless.

quote:

Originally posted by Joss Weatherby Not to defend a nutso like Q5 but comparing the use of nuclear weapons when only the US had them to how the US might use them now when lots of countries have them is really pointless.

The point stands that we used them on two very large civilian populations and I think our moral credibility on nuclear issues is somewhat damaged by it.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis The point stands that we used them on two very large civilian populations and I think our moral credibility on nuclear issues is somewhat damaged by it.

Seeing that Iran has been invaded and dominated time and again in the last 100 years, especially by western nuclear powers, how else are they going to project an effective deterrent against those who seek to impose undue foreign influence on the country...namely, regime change. Code word for: puppet government.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis The point stands that we used them on two very large civilian populations and I think our moral credibility on nuclear issues is somewhat damaged by it.

No, it does not stand actually.

The credibility of using nuclear weapons that you think the US has is based on a decision the US made when no other country had nuclear weapons and the fear of nuclear retribution was nonexistent.

There is no moral credibility now when talking about nuclear weapons either. Back then maybe, but now its a choice, at least for the major nuclear powers, of destroying the world or not destroying the world.

Nuclear weapons on the super/major power stage exist to not be used, and using them defies the purpose they have.

Its a completely different scenario than it was in 1945.

Iran has enough energy in the form of fossil fuels to last it many years. This nuclear power plant has cost them a fortune and its not nearly done yet.

The whole issue with nuclear energy is the obvious goals of the some Muslim leadership in the region - primarily the ones threatened by USA and Israel - to build these "nuclear powerplants" - Iraq attempted to build one and got it blown up, then Syria just few months ago got theirs destroyed.

Iran's terrain is not suited for nuclear power plants as most of the country is in some serious seismic activity. In my mind, Iran wants to develop nuclear technology for the sake of weapons as a deterrent against American or Israeli military strike, i.e. to become fully independent and safe from attack. This would safeguard their tyrannical regime for decades if not more.

We all know that Iran is an evil regime that executes children and has a horrible human rights record. They lie often and consider the West as infidels, and Ahmadinejad once proclaimed to "wipe Israel off the map". Their claims of "peaceful" "nuclear energy" should absolutely NOT be trusted. Iran needs to get things sorted out first before getting this kind of serious technology be accepted by the world community.

They certainly have a right to that energy, but USA and Israel are rightfully worried that these weapons may fall in the wrong hands - imagine if terrorists who are not afraid to blow themselves up then take control over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal? Today, there are serious issues in that country.

Recall Pakistan getting nuclear technology? How many nuclear power plants are up and running - can someone tell me?

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Iran wants to develop nuclear technology for the sake of weapons as a deterrent against American or Israeli military strike, i.e. to become fully independent and safe from attack. This would safeguard their tyrannical regime for decades if not more.

And? They are an independent and sovereign state. As long as they don't hurt anyone else that is a perfectly legitimate case for the possession of nuclear weapons. Especially when a country that declared them as "evil" has invaded two of its neighboring countries.

Do I think Iran should have nuclear weapons? No, not really, but they are different reasons than yours. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and they have had brutal government after government and yet no one really cares because they know that more than likely their possession is a deterrent force to India and the US. If Pakistan had no nukes, the US would have been in their in a much stronger fashion than it has been in the past.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium We all know that Iran is an evil regime that executes children and has a horrible human rights record. They lie often and consider the West as infidels, and Ahmadinejad once proclaimed to "wipe Israel off the map". Their claims of "peaceful" "nuclear energy" should absolutely NOT be trusted. Iran needs to get things sorted out first before getting this kind of serious technology be accepted by the world community.

Just because you think so doesn't make it everyone.

They have laws that disgust you, and Russia has laws that are even worse.. same goes for any other country.

Did you actually just say "Ahmadinejad once proclaimed to "wipe Israel off the map"", wow your a moron aren't you? It was proven that he never said those words yet your dumbass still brings it up.

Go hang yourself Kremlin.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Iran has enough energy in the form of fossil fuels to last it many years. This nuclear power plant has cost them a fortune and its not nearly done yet. The whole issue with nuclear energy is the obvious goals of the some Muslim leadership in the region - primarily the ones threatened by USA and Israel - to build these "nuclear powerplants" - Iraq attempted to build one and got it blown up, then Syria just few months ago got theirs destroyed. Iran's terrain is not suited for nuclear power plants as most of the country is in some serious seismic activity. In my mind, Iran wants to develop nuclear technology for the sake of weapons as a deterrent against American or Israeli military strike, i.e. to become fully independent and safe from attack. This would safeguard their tyrannical regime for decades if not more. We all know that Iran is an evil regime that executes children and has a horrible human rights record. They lie often and consider the West as infidels, and Ahmadinejad once proclaimed to "wipe Israel off the map". Their claims of "peaceful" "nuclear energy" should absolutely NOT be trusted. Iran needs to get things sorted out first before getting this kind of serious technology be accepted by the world community. They certainly have a right to that energy, but USA and Israel are rightfully worried that these weapons may fall in the wrong hands - imagine if terrorists who are not afraid to blow themselves up then take control over Pakistan's nuclear arsenal? Today, there are serious issues in that country. Recall Pakistan getting nuclear technology? How many nuclear power plants are up and running - can someone tell me?

dude Ive noticed that your view towards many things has changed alot in the last few weeks.Seems like you are leaning more toward the right side of politics.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Iran has enough energy in the form of fossil fuels to last it many years. This nuclear power plant has cost them a fortune and its not nearly done yet.

Wrong. Iran's economy is 70-80% oil export based. Do you honestly think they want to consume their own oil supply? And export what? A bunch of Persian rugs? No, they don't have enough fossil fuel energy, to both domestically consume, AND export. They'd be bone dry in no time. Iran definitely needs nuclear energy and they should have it.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Wrong. Iran's economy is 70-80% oil export based. Do you honestly think they want to consume their own oil supply? And export what? A bunch of Persian rugs? No, they don't have enough fossil fuel energy, to both domestically consume, AND export. They'd be bone dry in no time. Iran definitely needs nuclear energy and they should have it.

Iran is not suited for nuclear power plants. They are building ONE nuclear plant, let me repeat that - ONE - which will not generate enough energy for its population if they want to get off oil. Also, nuclear power plants are very expensive to build, and arent cheap to operate and maintain. They have already been falling behind on several occasions in payments to the Russian company building it! Seismic activity is a big threat with most of Iran is under some level of earthquake threat - they are putting at risk people and environment.

For a country that has yet to reach its full oil potential, going to nuclear power is very odd. Strangely enough, a normal country in this situation would go on a campaign portraying the evils of CO2 emissions and risk of shortage of fossil fuels, but for Iran its none of that. They magically just decided that nuclear power will be their ultimate solution. And considering the evils of their government/leadership, its is naive to believe that this is being done for good intentions, nor that it is their true or final intention.

Even an idiot knows that a country which has some of the world's abundant oil AND gas (not just oil) supplies - ranked in top 5 - and wants nuclear technology for fuel is not doing it because it is worried about running out of resources. It has bigger problems than that to deal with.

It doesnt even have appropriate infrastructure to provide energy for all of its population! Iran spends billions on importing GASOLINE, yes thats right, GASOLINE (refined from oil) because their own infrastructure is so bad. Its embarassing. Though Iran has announced it is going to decrease the import of gasoline, but its very embarassing.

And instead they prioritize on a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT? Give me a break. This is a POLITICAL move, a precedent for NUCLEAR POWER. Iran is feeling bold - carte blanche was granted to them when the regime of Saddam Hussein (their arch enemy) was pulled down by Americans.

Frankly, who cares?

If they get them, then so what? They wont use them ever. They would be insane to do that, because the two countries they threaten with them are both nuclear armed and would have no qualms wiping them off the face of the earth.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.