Alas Babylon - Iran and nukes

[Chiteng]

Well its 'game over'. The last chance to stop Iran from getting a nuke has failed.
THIS President will allow them to obtain not simply one, but an arsenal.

Iran, given the nature of the regime will eventually use one, either thru proxy or by
themselves.

The other states will want their own, justly doubting the USA being willing to protect them. In addition, Obama is delibretly hampering ballistic missile defense.

So, in my opinion: We can expect to see at least one US city nuked sometime in the next decade. Maybe more.

And I for one will hang that blame on Obama. He could have stopped it.

So unless Israel goes it alone, we are all in the hurt locker.
And why should Israel do that?

 

[Agent327]

Interesting "analysis"... Talk to you in 10 years.

 

[Global Skeptic]

"When one man dies it is a tragedy, when thousands die it's statistics."

 

[Borachio]

You've made that up.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erich_Maria_Remarque

When one man dies it is a tragedy, when thousands die it's thousands of tragedies.

 

[Leoreth]

I liked you more when your irrational reasons to dislike Obama were supported by anti-immigration views.

 

[amadeus]

Is there any evidence enough to convince some people Iran isn't building a nuclear bomb? Even our own intelligence agencies say there is evidence that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program and insufficient evidence that it has been restarted or that they even intend to build a bomb.

 

[Winner]

Is there any evidence enough to convince some people Iran isn't building a nuclear bomb? Even our own intelligence agencies say there is evidence that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program and insufficient evidence that it has been restarted or that they even intend to build a bomb.

Then I guess they obtained the blueprints for nuclear warheads from China and Pakistan just because they were curious

The amount of capital invested into the Iranian nuclear programme, financial and political, can hardly be logically justified if the end goal isn't a nuclear weapon. Now, Iran may opt for a closeted nuclear arsenal - obtain enough fissile material and technologies to assemble warheads for its missiles, so that if the need arises, it could quickly (weeks or months) muster a nuclear deterrent. The very possibility that Iran *may* have but one crude nuclear device could deter a direct military intervention against the country. There's no way to tell - a lack of concrete proof that Iran is building a nuclear weapon at this very moment may very well be virtually impossible to obtain and in any case is not needed.

 

[Leoreth]

The amount of capital invested into the Iranian nuclear programme, financial and political, can hardly be logically justified if the end goal isn't a nuclear weapon.

Not necessarily. The whole thing is a great opportunity for the Iranian leadership to stick it to the West and divert attention from actual problems within the country.

Note that I don't say that they aren't building a nuclear weapon.

 

[Winner]

Not necessarily. The whole thing is a great opportunity for the Iranian leadership to stick it to the West and divert attention from actual problems within the country.

Meh, there are cheaper and less dangerous ways of doing that. Unlike some American hawks, I don't think the Iranian leaders are insane or completely out of touch with reality. I don't think they would choose this course of action if they didn't think the gain outweighs the risk of becoming more politically and economically isolated, as well as getting militarily attacked by Israel, the US, or both. I think there is plenty of indirect evidence to support the hypothesis that Iran is doing all this to get nuclear weapons. How soon, how many, of what quality, and for what purpose - that's all debatable.

 

[amadeus]

Then I guess they obtained the blueprints for nuclear warheads from China and Pakistan just because they were curious

Source? I've been searching for 15 minutes and the closest thing I've found is a New York Times article from 2004 where a front group for an organization formerly (until about two months ago) considered a terrorist group by the U.S. made the accusation of Iran buying bomb plans on the black market.

The amount of capital invested into the Iranian nuclear programme, financial and political, can hardly be logically justified if the end goal isn't a nuclear weapon.

Would it really surprise you to find out that governments aren't particularly good at spending money wisely?

 

[Arwon]

Of course Iran is going to end up with a nuclear weapon. So what? Pakistan and Israel already have them.

 

[Borachio]

Yes. I really don't understand the logic of we can have them - because of course we're good guys - and you can't.

 

[Winner]

Yes. I really don't understand the logic of we can have them - because of course we're good guys - and you can't.

Educate yourself then.

Of course Iran is going to end up with a nuclear weapon. So what? Pakistan and Israel already have them.

There is this slight problem called the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which Iran is a signatory party of, which specifically forbids it from developing and deploying nuclear weapons. Neither Israel nor Pakistan are bound by the NPT.

Also, this helps make the world a better place how? Pakistan is on a verge of collapse which could unleash nuclear hell over the Indian subcontinent, so I wouldn't exactly cite it as a proof nuclear proliferation is nothing to be worried about.

 

[Agent327]

Pakistan is on a verge of collapse which could unleash nuclear hell over the Indian subcontinent

I'd say that's a bit of a crude assessment...

 

[Borachio]

Educate yourself then.

Comes down to who you think are the good guys doesn't it?

How do you spot those reliably? Educate me.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Yes. I really don't understand the logic of we can have them - because of course we're good guys - and you can't.

That isnt the logic behind the nuclear non proliferation treaty. The logic is an acceptance that those countries with arsenals aren't giving them up in a hurry and can't really be made to but not to let this stand in the way of non proliferation.

It's not ideal but it's not hypocritical either, it's just the best current practical means of slowing or eliminating their spread. The obvious downside is that it doesn't address at all the ultimate goal (for many of us) of a nuke free planet

 

[Winner]

Comes down to who you think are the good guys doesn't it?

How do you spot those reliably? Educate me.

You said you don't understand the logic why Iran can't have nukes. I gave one to Arwon right below that post.

I'd say that's a bit of a crude assessment...

We'll see in ten years. Here's another: usually, countries run intelligence services. Pakistan is run by an intelligence service. So well so that the country is a political/economic basket case.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

You said you don't understand the logic why Iran can't have nukes. I gave one to Arwon right below that post.

And I repeated it in a far clumsier and wordy fashion right after

 

[bhsup]

You've made that up.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erich_Maria_Remarque

Actually, Stalin said it (the version about it being a statistic.)

Yes. I really don't understand the logic of we can have them - because of course we're good guys - and you can't.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty says we can have them and they cannot have them both we (the USA) and they (Iran) signed it. FYI, btw, Israel, India, and Pakistan never signed it.

 

[bathsheba666]

"When one man dies it is a tragedy, when thousands die it's statistics."

When an Israeli dies it is a tragedy, when dozens of Palestinians die it's statistics.

Hence the situation in Iran. (People notice these things)