|
Nuclear weapon from Iran within a year (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
wait wait wait hold the on, THAT IS THE STANDARD |
Keep reading...
| quote: | | no country should have nuclear weapons, including the United States. |
|
|
|
| DJ Damerchi |
| 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.
as far as Iran is concerned they have repeatedly and purposefully failed to meet such criteria. |
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. |
|
|
| IlanG |
| 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. |
|
|
| DJ Damerchi |
| 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. |
|
|
| atbell |
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. |
|
|
| Kinezi |
| 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. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| 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. |
|
|
| DJ Damerchi |
| 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:stongue:
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 load 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. |
|
|
| XaNaX |
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. |
|
|
| The17sss |
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 |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
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... :p
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. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| 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. |
|
|
|
|
