GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
I see, the Neo-Nazi doesn't like Israel. Because they consider themselves "superior to everyone else"
Does Iran have these weapons ?
- Thread starter otago
- Start date
G-Man
A One Man's War
I don't know, but I doubt you do either. It depends on many factors - the amount and type of nuclear material, the building bombed and the type of bombs, the location of the site, winds, etc. Seeing as most of Iran's sites are in mountain areas and many of them are in strong bunkers, and that the total amount of nuclear material Iran has isn't huge, I'd say there's good reason to doubt your unbased estimates.
Religion plays a part in the politics of every country on earth. And I assume you don't know what a theocracy is if you say that.
Only if they want to be banned from the fields. And their chants usually vary from team to team, although seeing as most teams (as well as the national team) have Arab players, attacks on Arabs aren't very relevant.
Sure. All they need to do is avoid detection over Iraq (with the American army in it, ofcource), Jordan (which has a fairly good airforce) and Israel (with the strongest middle-eastern airforce), without refueling and with 40 year old aircraft. Seeing as in 2006 Israel managed to shoot down Iranian UAVs, I doubt their full-size manned aircraft will have a very good chance. Not to mention, ofcource, that using WMDs against a country which is believed to have nuclear weapons isn't a very smart move.
I highly doubt this report (most serious news sources didn't report it), but even if it is true - what makes you think that Israel doesn't already have bunker-buster bombs?
I highly doubt it.
They're God's Chosen People. They should be able to get away with whatever they want.
Welcome to the hypocrisy of nuclear politics. Why have a treaty at all when the current "Nuclear club" obviously have no intention whatsoever to get rid of their own weapons of massdestruction?
This is the craziest thread I think I have ever read. There is no way the Israelis would use nuclear weapons on Iran (at-least not in a first strike). Especially without first consulting the United States. As far as Iran trying to use either nuclear or biological weapons on Israel. Nuclear is possible if they managed to develop it. As far as biological, they do not have the technology to put it on a missile. A plane carrying it would get shot down before it ever even got half way through Iraq by American military forces. What you guys think we don't have radar displays in Iraq?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
If we allow Iran to reneg on its treaty, that might be the case. If they experience harsh sanctions, or possibly military action, then I dont think your prediction accurate.
EnglishEdward
Deity
Wel if Iran was to get nuked for doing nothing, maybe.
But if Iran gets nuked for developing nukes while supporting Hamas terrorism,
it might very much discourage others from seeking nukes or supporting terrorism.
G-Man
A One Man's War
Why would an attack on Iran require nukes - especially if it's done by the US, which has more than enough conventional forces to reduce the entire Iranian military to rubbles, let alone its nuclear sites.
I'd say you're wrong on that. I took until 1999 for Pakistan to develop nukes with Chinese help. North Korea, Iran and Syria have nowhere near that sort of backing. Iran is reliant on Russian help, so has the best shot at it, while NK's nuclear tests have been miserable failures.
The only odds of what you're saying coming true would be if Iran managed to create nukes without anyone noticing - one hell of an intelligence coup - and Japan and the EU were to begin building nukes for some reason. Other than Australia, Canada and Norway, they're pretty much the only countries that can. Well, South Africa could build them again I suppose.
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
Originally posted by otago
to which Mobboss replied
to which I added
If Israel or any other country uses Nukes a lot of other countries will start developing them because they will be scared of Israel or North Korea or because Nukes have been demonstrated in action.
How about some of these
South Korea, Japan, Australia, Taiwan, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, Germany, Poland, Spain, Serbia, Egypt, Sweden, UAE, Romania, Saudi Arabia,
to which Mobboss replied
to which I added
If Israel or any other country uses Nukes a lot of other countries will start developing them because they will be scared of Israel or North Korea or because Nukes have been demonstrated in action.
How about some of these
South Korea, Japan, Australia, Taiwan, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, Germany, Poland, Spain, Serbia, Egypt, Sweden, UAE, Romania, Saudi Arabia,
Winner
Diverse in Unity
No, it's not. Israel never signed the treaty, so why the heck should it oblige to it?
It's the same with India and Pakistan.
If Iran renounces the treaty (like North Korea did), then it will not be obliged to allow any IAEA inspections. On the other hand, such a move would make it clear to everyone they're really building the bomb.
You talk nonsense. Think about it - if I and RedRalphWiggum made an agreement obliging us not to argue with each other, would it make sense if we required others not to argue with us, even though they didn't sign the agreement? No.
Israel is outside the NPT architecture. It has nukes, but it faces all sorts of 'sanctions' related to nuclear material (NPT signatories are not allowed to share sensitive nuclear technology with non-signatories). NPT itself is quite unfair because it allows 5 countries to own nuclear weapons just because they were the first to acquire them.
But all this doesn't really matter - Iran signed the treaty which means it MADE A PROMISE not to develop nuclear weapons. It also promised to allow the IAEA to make sure it keeps this promise.
If they break these promises, they're breaking the international law - whether you like it, or not. Israel isn't breaking the treaty, because it hadn't signed it.
If Israel uses nukes for any reason other than to stop an invasion of Israel or in direct response to a nuclear or bio-chemical attack on Israel I will personally eat my own shoes. As I've said to people about Iran using nukes on Israel, Israel is not stupid. They're not about to commit economic and diplomatic suicide by launching an unprovoked nuclear attack. And anyone who thinks they'd need to use nukes to stop an Iranian nuclear program hasn't a clue about warfare or nuclear development.
As for nukes being demonstrated in action, you are aware of a little thing known as the Second World War, are you not? They're were a couple of big explosions in Japan towards the end of that you may want to read up on. Everyone is well aware of the consequences of nuclear warfare. That's a large part of the reason why many nations don't even try to build nukes; they don't want to make themselves targets. Since they can't build enough to make themselves a legitimate threat to the nations with a head start on them, like the US and Israel, they don't bother.
NK and Pakistan are exceptions who began nuclear programs in response to outside threats - the US and India respectively - who they simply were not capable of combating using conventional methods anymore. Both have poor nuclear arsenals - in NK's case, they may well be bluffing - and NK's reasons were as much domestic as international; they need to try and weaken the military, which is becoming fed up with the incompetent government, without appearing to weaken the military. They therefore build nukes, which gives the military a prestige boost while actually diverting money away from conventional arms.
Another reason for not building nukes is economic. Nuclear arsenals cost a lot of money. For most nations in the world, who do not face any real threats from other nation-states, nuclear arsenals simply aren't worth it. The US and Russia are downsizing their own arsenals now, since even maintaining the things once you've built them is bloody expensive.
To go through your nations one-by-one, with reasons why they won't build nukes:
South Korea: South Korea already has American nukes on its soil, so it doesn't need more of its own. Even if the US were to withdraw from SK, the nukes there were originally intended to threaten Eastern Russia. While they conveniently doubled as a threat to China, SK no longer need fear a Chinese invasion, and hasn't had to since the Sino-Soviet Rift in the 1960s. All possessing nukes would do for SK would be to make China see it as a potential threat, increasing SK's danger.
NK's pathetic nuclear program - it has only enough fissionable material for eight nukes, and it's already used two of them in failed tests - is no threat to SK, as it could defeat NK in a war, and NK's few nuclear weapons are actually weaker than those used to attack Hiroshima in WWII. Such a nuke wouldn't even destroy Seoul, though it would cause many deaths. The resulting South Korean retaliation would destroy NK, a much weaker nation than its southern neighbour. This is no longer the 1950s.
SK is actually under more threat from NK's artillery than it's nuclear arsenal, and Patroklus has provided information on these forums before which would indicate that even that is negligible. Basically, SK could conquer NK anytime it wants, but it has no need to fight a bloody war of unification with its northern neighbour when it can simply wait for the faltering regime to collapse on its own.
Japan: This is your most sensible suggestion. If Japan were to lose confidence in the US alliance for some reason, it is the nation in the world most capable of quickly arming itself with nuclear weapons. It could develop a nuclear weapon within two weeks of making the decision to do so, and good-sized arsenal within 3 months. No other nation on Earth could do this, including many nations that already have nukes. Only the US, France and Britain could conceivably match this build-up among nuclear states, and Germany is also capable of keeping up.
The question then becomes; why would Japan lose its confidence in the US alliance? Japan has no reason to buld nukes if it retains confidence in the US; doing so would both cost it money and make it a target. The only real chance of this happening would be if the US were to withdraw completely from the East Asian region. Japan, as the strongest nation among the US allies in the area, would be the natural choice to take over its leadership. Taiwan, SK and maybe even The Philippines and Australia would look to Japan to guide security policy. Japan would immediately discard Article 9 of its constitution and begin preparing to defend itself from its two potential aggressors, China and NK. In this situation Japan would almost certainly develop a nuclear arsenal. It would be the only way to successfully challenge China if the latter were to become belligerent.
The odds of the US completely withdrawing from East Asia are miniscule. It is true that Obama is downsizing the US contribution to security in the region, but with two ongoing wars and an economic crisis this is inevitable. But limiting the US role is very different to eliminating it. The US values its alliance with Japan and fears the rise of China. It also has continuing tensions with Russia. To abandon its allies in the region would also be a major diplomatic faux pas by the US, at a time when it is finding it more and more difficult to retain allies from the Cold War. For these reasons it is unlikely that the US will withdraw from East Asia, making it unnecessary for Japan to create a nuclear arsenal.
Australia: Australia faces no external threats whatsoever. Thre only nation in the world that is capable of successfully invading Australia is the US, and they're our closest allies. Australia is among the most stable, secure nations on Earth. We have absolutely no need to build nuclear weapons and very little need for what military we currently have, which is mostly used in policing and peacekeeping actions outside our borders, as well as disaser relief within them.
Taiwan: Virtually the same as Japan, only far more volatile and with far less to recommend it. Taiwan building nukes would only piss off the Chinese, who already claim sovereignty over the island. Taiwan is capable of defending itself from a Chinese conventional attack, making a nuclear deterrant of its own pointless, but incapable of defending against a nuclear one. If they begin building nuclear weapons the Chinese will (justifiably) take it as a sign of aggressive intent and attack. Taiwan is also not capable of cranking out nukes with anywhere near the speed of Japan, lacking its high-tech industry and numerous nuclear power stations. It's also full of Chinese spies, rendering any attempt to build nukes in secret - already next-to-impossible in most nations - completely unrealistic. A Taiwanese nuclear program would be the death of Taiwan.
Brazil: Are you kidding? What possible threat exists to Brazil that would require a nuclear arsenal? if youre suggesting they'd do it for reasons of prestige, I'd direct your attention to the failure of their submarine program for economic reasons. luiz could illustrate it better than I could, but the program is an expensive farce. Developing nukes from scratch, in a country with none of the facilities necessary to do so, would be a far more expensive and long-lasting undertaking. It's not worth the trouble, even to a government with prestige on the brain.
Argentina: The exact same as Brazil, only their government isn't as obsessed with prestige as their larger neighbour.
Canada: Why? Canada is already annoyed that being as close to the US as it is makes them likely victims of collateral damage in any American nuclear war. Why make themselves targets when the US and Britain, it's two closest allies, already possess half the world's nukes between them? Canada faces no external threats, excepting perhaps terrorism, which you can't kill by dropping a nuke. A Canadian nuclear program would be redundant and wasteful.
Germany: If Germany didn't build nukes during the Cold War, when it was under constant threat of Soviet invasion, why would it do so now? It's closest ally is France, a nuclear state, and another ally and EU member, Britain, also possesses a nuclear arsenal, as does fellow-NATO member the US. A German nuclear arsenal would be pointless, and given the already paranoid suspicions directed towards it by neighbouring countries who remember WWII, needlessly and counter-productively provocative. Germany needs to draw its neighbours in closer, not frighten them with unnecessary militarism.
Poland: Are you high? Poland is as capable of building nukes as I am of crapping solid gold harmonicas. On the off-chance that Poland miraculously invented a way of building nukes out of sausages and began a nuclear program, Russia would invade the next day. Russia has no interest in Poland and doesn't want a war with the EU, but such a move would be so ridiculously provocative that Russia's hand would pretty much be forced.
Spain: Spain possesses neither the means nor the necessity to construct nuclear weapons. Who are they going to use them on, the Basques? In fact, Spains internal problems are yet another reason NOT to build nukes. Why risk the Basques or other separatists getting their hands on them?
Serbia: What? I'm getting convinced you're trolling me. Serbia can't even keep control of its own recalcitrant provinces and has already been bombed to hell by NATO on several occasions. Why in the name of all that is holy would they invite more? And that's assuming they have the capability to construct nukes in the first place. They don't.
Egypt: Because they like getting bombed by Israel? Egypt's only potential enemy is Israel, with whom it is currently on friendly terms. Why threaten them with needless provocative displays, as I've mentioned about several other nations in this post. The day Egypt builds a nuke is the day that its peace with Israel ends. Not that Egypt is capable of building nukes anyway, like many of the nations you seem to think can conjure them up by magic.
Sweden: Sweden could build nukes, but why would it want to? It's a NATO member and faces no external threats. It's also out-of-the-way in the case of a nuclear war between the US/France/Britain and Russia, meaning it could escape unscathed. Why call attention to itself?
UAE: Where do you think nukes come from? Magical fairies? You need facilities to construct these things which simply don't exist in most countries. UAE is already near-bankruptcy, and building such facilities from scratch would send it over the edge. Not to mention, once again, the lack of threats.
Romania: You're kidding me? I guess I'm back to crapping solid gold harmonicas. See Poland.
Saudi Arabia: See Egypt and UAE. No need, waste of money, no facilities and it would piss off Israel with no reason.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
Israel first have to ask permission to go through many airspace in order for the weapon to strike inside Iranian soveriegnty. Trust me, if Israel send some fighter jets across Iraq, they would surely be confronted by US fighter Jets.
The Zionist Occupiers are not extremely insane.
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
Lord Baal@
I quite agree with you that it is unlikely that Israel will nuke Iran.
It is also unlikely that Iran will nuke Israel because they would be nuked back.
I am well aware of the two A bomb attacks on Japan in WW2 but the use of Nukes since then has been Taboo.
If they are used by any country for any reason including being overrun it will change the nature of warfare because there use will no longer be taboo.
You say no country would want to build Nukes then why is there a NPT.
Why did France and UK develop Nukes when they were protected by the US.
I quite agree with you that it is unlikely that Israel will nuke Iran.
It is also unlikely that Iran will nuke Israel because they would be nuked back.
I am well aware of the two A bomb attacks on Japan in WW2 but the use of Nukes since then has been Taboo.
If they are used by any country for any reason including being overrun it will change the nature of warfare because there use will no longer be taboo.
You say no country would want to build Nukes then why is there a NPT.
Why did France and UK develop Nukes when they were protected by the US.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
In regards to Japan...I think they have an actual law that prevents them from developing nuclear weapons. More than half the country would go ape if they tried it.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
They do, article 9, IIRC... why do you think more than half would be against it?
