|
Nuclear Proliferation (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Frenchie
You asked why people put you on their retard list. This is why. You are sick of people ragging on you. This is why they do it. |
Popularity contests don't concern me...;) |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
thats ing retarded. |
Like I said, it seems like the only way to resist America is by having a nuclear weapon. Currently, we have 2 aircraft carrier groups right off their coast. Are you going to tell me, from an Iranian national security point of view, they shouldn't do everything in their power to defend themselves, or at the very least, deter anyone from attacking them? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Like I said, it seems like the only way to resist America is by having a nuclear weapon. Currently, we have 2 aircraft carrier groups right off their coast. Are you going to tell me, from an Iranian national security point of view, they shouldn't do everything in their power to defend themselves? |
please explain to me how a nuclear weapon that is unable to reach any target of merit is 'defensive' at all? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
please explain to me how a nuclear weapon that is unable to reach any target of merit is 'defensive' at all? |
Nuclear weapons are by their very nature, defensive weapons. Weapons of deterance. Only during World War II was this not the case. Iran clearly needs a deterance against their nuclear armed enemies. It would be in their interest to possess a nuclear weapon. Do I personally want them to have one? Of course not. The less nuclear weapons in the world, the better. But that's not the reality of the world with live in.
But let's not detract from the fact Iran has made overtures to engage in negotiations, even a peace treaty, but our lovely Bush Administration rebuffed on every overture.
I'm off to a business panel meeting at my uni. Be back later.. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Nuclear weapons are by their very nature, defensive weapons. Weapons of deterance. Only during World War II was this not the case. Iran clearly needs a deterance against their nuclear armed enemies. It would be in their interest to possess a nuclear weapon. Do I personally want them to have one? Of course not. The less nuclear weapons in the world, the better. But that's not the reality of the world with live in.
But let's not detract from the fact Iran has made overtures to engage in negotiations, even a peace treaty, but our lovely Bush Administration rebuffed on every overture.
I'm off to a business panel meeting at my uni. Be back later.. |
but how are they a deterance exactly? how would iran use a nuclear weapon against an invading force? do you think its appropriate to defend your country by destroying it? :conf: |
|
|
| diesel_tron3000 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dr. DAS
The only time a nuclear weapon has been in Canada is when we burn them in our CANDU reactors.
Canada is not, and has never been a nuclear weapon state and doesn't belong on that list. |
HAH don't fool yourself canada has some nukes, somewhere...like do you really expect the canadian government not to have them, you guys are for like all practical purposes in the american family along with good ole mexico. we're all one big family!
nuclear technology is the best and the worst thing ever discovered. virtually unlimited power creation out of a couple pounds of materials.
i'm still undecided if a terrorist group would actually use a nuke. it really would change the world. if islamic terrorists destonated one, i'm about 123% sure the world would ban together and outlaw/wipe out islam as a religion and culture. i'd put my money on a lesser group that's not too well known or possibly a splinter military division, from, maybe, pakistan? that damn country is more of a worry than iran when it comes to nukes. plus the whole ballistic-missile-hitting-the-US-thing from iran is nonsense, you know how high tech an ICBM is?
AQ khan was a reallll bastard for spreading the tech around.
and i'm not convinced MAD theory still holds true anymore, at least in the same sense that it used to. if nukes ever fly, i'd have one thing to say
oh nuckro you'd dead |
|
|
| noikeee |
| Call me a , but that list is ing scary and the idea of a terrorist group having a nuke is even more so. The worst part is that I think it's inevitably going to happen one day. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
but how are they a deterance exactly? how would iran use a nuclear weapon against an invading force? do you think its appropriate to defend your country by destroying it? :conf: |
How is it a deterance? Is that a real question?:conf: I never said Iran would use a nuke against an invading force. As I said, nukes are used as a deterant. Iran would find themselves much less likely to be attacked if they had a nuke. And how is building a nuke destroying it? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
How is it a deterance? Is that a real question?:conf: I never said Iran would use a nuke against an invading force. As I said, nukes are used as a deterant. Iran would find themselves much less likely to be attacked if they had a nuke. And how is building a nuke destroying it? |
ok, so the iranians arent gonna use it against an invading force. how exactly does it act as a deterant then? :conf: |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
ok, so the iranians arent gonna use it against an invading force. how exactly does it act as a deterant then? :conf: |
Is Pakistan, North Korea, or India going to use one on an invading force? No. They stick them on missiles and threaten to flatten Seoul or Delhi. The threat of that is enough to keep any aggressor at bay. |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
| inb4pltclthrdmorans |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Is Pakistan, North Korea, or India going to use one on an invading force? No. They stick them on missiles and threaten to flatten Seoul or Delhi. The threat of that is enough to keep any aggressor at bay. |
right. so who are they threatening with their missile, given that they cant go very far? and do you really think its appropriate to threaten third parties? |
|
|
|
|
