|
Nuclear Proliferation (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
Baby's got an atom bomb
A mothering atom bomb
Twenty two megaton
You've never seen so much fun
Baby got a poison gas
Baby got a heart attacks
Baby got a pain on tap
Baby gimme some of that
Baby got a nobel prize
Given for the perfect crime
Baby got an alibi
Baby got eight more lives
Baby got a satellite
Baby got second sight
Baby got a masterplan
A foolproof master plan
Baby got purple hair
Baby got a secret lair
Baby got an army there
I ain't ever seen baby scared
(Gimme some of that)
(Gimme some of that)
Baby got a crystal ball
Baby doesn't care at all
Baby's having too much fun
Baby got an atom bomb
Baby got a fleet at sea
And a submarine called Emergency
She got a motorcade
She got a monorail
Going coast to coast on a campain trail
Playing deck of cards in an armoured car
She got a kung fu star as a bodyguard
She got a juju charm
She got a magic spell
She got a genie all three is working well
She got a tv show
She got a shopping mall
She got a miracle, she doesn't want at all
She got a monument at a great expense
She got a head of state and a president
She got destiny, she got supremacy
She got everything from A - Z
She got it all down tight, she got nothing wrong
She got the whole wide world singing baby's song
 |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
The boy's got a head like an atom bomb
Hang him from a cross like the number one son
And he's been waiting so long
To get it on. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Their Sajid missiles have a range of 2000 km. You tell me who they can threaten within that range. There are plenty of targets. Israel is not a third party. No nuclear armed country has ever been invaded or occupied. According to the doctrine of "mutually assured destruction", a country which destroys a nuclear armed country will itself be destroyed by the retaliation of the country being attacked. While Iran couldn't fire a missile at America, they have already stated they see no difference between Israel and America if either one attacked them.
Deterrence is a strategy by which governments threaten an immense retaliation if attacked, such that aggressors are deterred if they do not wish to suffer great damage as a result of an aggressive action. Weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), conventional weapons strength, economic sanctions, or any combination of these can be used as deterrents. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is a form of this strategy, which came to prominence during the Cold War when it was used by the US to characterize relations between the United States and Soviet Union, although the Soviet Union did not in fact adhere to MAD and was prepared to fight a full scale nuclear and conventional war.
Yost, D. 2007. "Analysing International Nuclear Order." International Affairs 83:3, 549=574 |
but iran doesn't have the capacity to engage in MAD. and dont lecture me like im a little kid taking his first course in history. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
but iran doesn't have the capacity to engage in MAD. and dont lecture me like im a little kid taking his first course in history. |
Where did I say they had? Obviously they don't have a nuclear weapon. The point is, if they had a nuclear weapon, the threat of a nuclear retaliation by Iran would be enough to halt an aggressor from attacking them. I really don't know why that's so hard so understand.
I'm not lecturing you, but it seems to me you don't know anything about nuclear deterrence, which is the reason I'm saying, it is in Iran's national security interest to have a nuclear weapon to serve a deterrence to aggressors. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Where did I say they had? Obviously they don't have a nuclear weapon. The point is, if they had a nuclear weapon, the threat of a nuclear retaliation by Iran would be enough to halt an aggressor from attacking them. I really don't know why that's so hard so understand. |
firstly, 'retaliation' isn't the same thing as attacking an uninvolved state (like israel). secondly, why talk about MAD considering that even if iran had nukes they wouldn't have enough to engage in MAD? thirdly, how can you see a nuclear iran whose only recourse to agressive US foreign policy is dropping bombs on israel to be a good thing?
put it this way, IF the US attacked iran, do you think it is a legitimate strategy to bomb israel, and if not, why do you see iran obtaining a nuclear weapon to be a good thing? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
firstly, 'retaliation' isn't the same thing as attacking an uninvolved state (like israel). secondly, why talk about MAD considering that even if iran had nukes they wouldn't have enough to engage in MAD? thirdly, how can you see a nuclear iran whose only recourse to agressive US foreign policy is dropping bombs on israel to be a good thing?
put it this way, IF the US attacked iran, do you think it is a legitimate strategy to bomb israel, and if not, why do you see iran obtaining a nuclear weapon to be a good thing? |
lol, Israel being an uninvolved state? Come on now..:rolleyes:..American and Israel are joined at the hip. Israel has liaison officers in the Pentagon..;)..Iran makes no distinction between the two.
Iran wouldn't need 100 nukes to engage in MAD. One is enough. All they need is the distinction of being one of the nuclear armed countries of the world, and that threat alone, of the potential capabilitity of a nuclear retaliation is enough to keep aggressors at bay, according to MAD. I don't say, "a nuclear iran whose only recourse to agressive US foreign policy is dropping bombs on israel to be a good thing." I said it's in Iran's national security interest to possess such a capability.
If the US bombed Iran, Iran would retaliate against any and all American interests, Israel included. Is that a good thing? Hell no, war is hell. But then again, the US doesn't need to be bombing Iran, and niether does Israel. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
lol, Israel being an uninvolved state? Come on now..:rolleyes:..American and Israel are joined at the hip. Israel has liaison officers in the Pentagon..;)..Iran makes no distinction between the two. |
you're almost child-like sometimes. you constantly rail against the US for its hawkish foreign policy yet defend a nuclear attack on israeli cities because she is an ally of the united states? that's so ing stupid.
no one is denying that US foreign policy needs to be reeled in. and who knows, the new government might do just that.
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Iran wouldn't need 100 nukes to engage in MAD. One is enough. All they need is the distinction of being one of the nuclear armed countries of the world, and that threat alone, of the potential capabilitity of a nuclear retaliation is enough to keep aggressors at bay, according to MAD. |
MAD refers exclusively to the cold war era between massive powers and the politics of the time. MAD is not necessarily applicable to all countries that happen to have nukes. georgia just waged an aggressive war against a nuclear power ffs.
its retarded that you think a nuclear arms race will be a good thing for security in the middle east, especially when placing such weapons in the arms of autocratic and/or oppressive governments. a small minority of whom possess a certain armageddon-like religious faith.
no countries should possess nuclear weapons, and every time a new state joins the club the world slips further away from chances of disarmament. it is just juvenile partisan nonsense to argue otherwise.
it is ridiculous to argue that
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I think Iran should have a nuke. |
the closer iran gets and the more relations break down the more likely there is to be another war in the middle east between states.
...the US and/or israel learn that iran IS close to making a bomb. things go hot. maybe they beat iran to the punch. maybe not...iran launches a nuke at israel, israel retaliates with nukes on iran.
...the world becomes a really wonderful place to live.
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I don't say, "a nuclear iran whose only recourse to agressive US foreign policy is dropping bombs on israel to be a good thing." I said it's in Iran's national security interest to possess such a capability. |
as above. the more likely it becomes that iran is making a bomb the more likely they are to be attacked.
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
If the US bombed Iran, Iran would retaliate against any and all American interests, Israel included. Is that a good thing? Hell no, war is hell. But then again, the US doesn't need to be bombing Iran, and niether does Israel. |
nobody is saying that israel or the US should be bombing iran, but its just nonsensical to believe that handing out more nukes makes anyone safer. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| krypton, i would also like to know why you think it is acceptable for iran to renege on its signature to the non-proliferation treaty? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
you're almost child-like sometimes. you constantly rail against the US for its hawkish foreign policy yet defend a nuclear attack on israeli cities because she is an ally of the united states? that's so ing stupid.
no one is denying that US foreign policy needs to be reeled in. and who knows, the new government might do just that. |
No where am I defending a nuclear attack on Israel. Straw man argument. If you didn't know, Iran has categorically stated that if attacked, they would see no distinction between Israel or the United States in its retaliation. I'm not saying this, they are.
| quote: | | MAD refers exclusively to the cold war era between massive powers and the politics of the time. MAD is not necessarily applicable to all countries that happen to have nukes. georgia just waged an aggressive war against a nuclear power ffs. |
Georgia waged a war with it's separatist states. Russia simply intervened. MAD hold true even today. It's not an exclusively Cold War doctrine. If Russia nukes America, both countries are gonna be goners. MAD still works.
| quote: | its retarded that you think a nuclear arms race will be a good thing for security in the middle east, especially when placing such weapons in the arms of autocratic and/or oppressive governments. a small minority of whom possess a certain armageddon-like religious faith.
no countries should possess nuclear weapons, and every time a new state joins the club the world slips further away from chances of disarmament. it is just juvenile partisan nonsense to argue otherwise.
it is ridiculous to argue that |
I never said it'de be good for security in the Middle East. I said it would be in Iran's national security interest to deter hostile forces from attacking them. I wish no country would have nuclear weapons, but the reality is, the genie is already out of the bottle.
| quote: | | ...the US and/or israel learn that iran IS close to making a bomb. things go hot. maybe they beat iran to the punch. maybe not...iran launches a nuke at israel, israel retaliates with nukes on iran. |
MAD would prevent both countries from nuking each other.
| quote: | | as above. the more likely it becomes that iran is making a bomb the more likely they are to be attacked. |
Well, Iran probably realizes this, and so as the IAEA and CIA intelligence report confirm, they have no active nuclear weapons program.
| quote: | | nobody is saying that israel or the US should be bombing iran, but its just nonsensical to believe that handing out more nukes makes anyone safer. |
It would certainly make the country with the nuke safer. Simply as a matter of deterrence. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
krypton, i would also like to know why you think it is acceptable for iran to renege on its signature to the non-proliferation treaty? |
Well they haven't. They have no active nuclear weapons program. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
No where am I defending a nuclear attack on Israel. Straw man argument. |
it is implicit within your argument mate. you said 'i think iran should have nukes'. by definition this means you think iran should have nukes to threaten retaliation against israel as part of its national security. you're not following your arguments through to their logical conclusion, it is not a straw man argument.
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
If you didn't know, Iran has categorically stated that if attacked, they would see no distinction between Israel or the United States in its retaliation. I'm not saying this, they are. |
so what? what are you even talking about? i am simply referring to your state that 'i think iran should have nuked' (my emphasis). whether iran considers israel = US or not is irrelevant. the point is that you are defending iran's retaliation (whatever that may be) with nuclear ing weapons, when it is the pursuit of those weapons that makes an attack against iran likely. you are essentially advocating the threat of nuclear war to pacify nations that are worried about the threat of nuclear war :rolleyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Georgia waged a war with it's separatist states. Russia simply intervened. |
no, georgia killed russian soldiers in its attacks.
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
MAD hold true even today. It's not an exclusively Cold War doctrine. If Russia nukes America, both countries are gonna be goners. MAD still works. |
ugh. of course MAD still holds true today with the US and russia. but it doesn't apply to state's like iran that manage to build a bomb or two. MAD is as much about policy as it is nuclear capability, and MAD was more an important doctrine of cold war politics than it is today (despite what the bush years have done in taking steps backwards).
you are completely ignoring the point that iran can't just "magic" a bomb into existance, that they have to build one over many years, and that this initial process is what will cause the problems that you supposedly wish to avoid.
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I never said it'de be good for security in the Middle East. I said it would be in Iran's national security interest to deter hostile forces from attacking them. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I think Iran should have a nuke |
if you don't think it'd be good for security in the middle east then why do you think iran should have a nuke? stop speaking like an iranian nationalist and defend your original statement that caused this line of argument.
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I wish no country would have nuclear weapons, but the reality is, the genie is already out of the bottle. |
yeah, so let's just arm everyone. because you know, that'll make your "wish" of a nuclear-free world that much more likely. seriously, i don't understand why you can't see the blatant contradiction in your words.
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
MAD would prevent both countries from nuking each other. |
no, it wouldn't. there is no "MAD". iran is the only country that would be destroyed. and "MAD" wouldn't prevent pre-emptive action by the US or israel before iran was capable of going MAD in the first place.
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Well, Iran probably realizes this, and so as the IAEA and CIA intelligence report confirm, they have no active nuclear weapons program. |
then if they have no nuclear weapons program, why say
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I think Iran should have a nuke |
??
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
It would certainly make the country with the nuke safer. Simply as a matter of deterrence. |
i seriously doubt it. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Well they haven't. They have no active nuclear weapons program. |
but you support them reneging
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I think Iran should have a nuke |
so i want you to defend your postion that it is ok with you if iran decided to renege on its commitments. |
|
|
|
|
