How to stop Iran from wanting the bomb.

[aimeeandbeatles]

Maybe if we were nice to them and didn't make them feel scared they wouldn't feel they need nukes to defend themselves.

 

[Takhisis]

Actually, you guys made me rethink my position on this. Iran has a very long history of religious radicalism in its government, so I think Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons until long after it has become a Democracy. We need to make damn sure the religious elements in their government disappear and never come back.

I repeat myself: get rid of the radicals in your own government and then we can talk.

 

[BasketCase]

We don't have any.

Maybe if we were nice to them and didn't make them feel scared they wouldn't feel they need nukes to defend themselves.

The United States has already been there.

At the end of World War II, the U.S. and its allies had just beaten the living bejeezus out of two major world powers. At the same time. We feared nothing. Yet we still went after the bomb. Why? Doesn't matter if nobody is attacking you and making you feel scared; the fact that you've got nukes and nobody else does, makes you that much safer.

Iran will always want nukes. No matter what.

 

[Takhisis]

We don't have any.

 ___
{o,o}
|)__)
-"-"-
O RLY?

The United States has already been there.

At the end of World War II, the U.S. and its allies had just beaten the living bejeezus out of two major world powers. At the same time. We feared nothing. Yet we still went after the bomb. Why? Doesn't matter if nobody is attacking you and making you feel scared; the fact that you've got nukes and nobody else does, makes you that much safer.

It makes you that much safer to have the biggest gun in the place because you're simply the biggest bully in the playground. It also helps when your population is in the hundreds of millions, half the rest of the world has been devastated by war and you can scare everyone into believing there's Reds under the bed.
Also, if you fear nothing, why the need to be safe?

Iran will always want nukes. No matter what.

Apparently, in your own words there's a big humungous revolution going on. Why would the following government want to have nuclear weapons? They'd simply stop at power plants like many other countries have done.

 

[emzie]

And you would be wrong. My answer to your hypothetical was "your hypothetical is impossible".

There is a revolution (or an attempt at one) in progress in Iran. They're trying to overthrow the current regime. That describes pretty clearly what the Iranian people think of the current regime. So, when you ask "what if the Iranians re-elected all the people currently in power" I say "that cannot possibly happen".

Let me quote the relevant part from the thread Zelig linked. It includes BOLDFACE so I'm sure you'll be able to comprehend it.

Hi! This thread is where you can figure out whether you have the slightest clue what hypotheticals and stipulations are, what their rhetorical function is, and how to use them properly and improperly. I hope to generate some discussion, but I also hope that this post can be linked-to when someone makes themselves look stupid by failing to understand very very basic facts about hypotheticals.

The following situation seems all too common on OT:

Threadstarter: If you had an apple, and orange, and a pear, and you could only eat them one at a time, and you could not season them in any way, which would you eat first?

...

Poster 5: This is totally unrealistic. Why would I have those three fruits? Why can I only eat them one at a time? Why can't I season them? Sorry but in the real world it just doesn't happen this way, so I refuse to answer.

Each of these answers demonstrates a profound and mind-numbing inability to understand the basic function of hypothetical cases.

...

Poster 5 fails to grasp the basic, obvious fact that HYPOTHETICALS DO NOT HAVE TO BE REALISTIC. Of course, everybody knows this. Nobody, for instance, would refuse to answer the following hypotheticals because they are unrealistic:

If you had a 6 foot vertical leap, what would be the first thing you'd jump over?

If a genie gave you the choice of being a professional basketball player, or a world-class concert violinist, which would you choose?

Obviously, these are unrealistic scenarios. That does not mean that we can't answer them, though! Hypotheticals are often unrealistic, because they often intend to isolate issues that are rarely isolated in real life. When you refuse to answer a hypothetical on the grounds that it is unrealistic, it makes you look stupid.

 

[warpus]

There's still the option of successfully convincing Iran they don't want nukes.

Ain't gonna happen - it would mean:

1. Israel giving up their nukes
2. Americans moving out of the middle east

It's why Iran wants nukes - they look around and all they see are American bases and a nuclear Israel. If you want to pursuade them that they don't need nukes - 1. and 2. will have to happen. but they never will.

 

[GoodGame]

....build a better death ray and personal atom bomb shields for the troops.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Iran's election process was brought to a standstill in 2009. "In practice" Iran's democracy is completely dysfunctional.

What are you talking about?

Wrong. The reason the U.S. can operate on Pakistani soil is because we can sneak in without getting spotted. We went in there to kill Osama without Pakistan's permission. Be real clear on that boldface part.
The fact that Pakistan has nukes, gave them zero leverage to prevent us from pulling that nasty little stunt.

Let me put it another way. The fact that the US can seemingly effort to sneak in troops on a covert operation in a country where the US supports the government and militarily cooperates with it against subjects which officially are the enemy of said government as well - does not indicate that nuclear deterrent does not work. What it indicates is that the occasion depicted is not necessarily hindered by nuclear deterrence. So this basically just proves that having nuclear weapons doesn't make one all-powerful on sovereign issues regardless of the context - not much more (in a generic context).

Hence my assertion, that your conclusion that this would show nuclear deterrent to not work in principle, to be an "shallow argument".

Iraq. There.

Whatever the "bad blood", it is ridiculous to assert that Iraq has any interest in an attack on Iran. It might possibly maybe be drawn into an US-American attack. I'll give you that.

 

[Dachs]

Let me quote the relevant part from the thread Zelig linked. It includes BOLDFACE so I'm sure you'll be able to comprehend it.

I think he needs allcaps. And large fonts. Maybe colors too.

 

[Takhisis]

Sorry, but in real life people wouldn't write it in allcaps and wouldn't spend a lot of money in coloured ink so someone'll be refusing to answer.

 

[Ayatollah So]

The Iranian Supreme Leader says that nuclear weapons are haram (sinful). I suppose that might just be a bald-faced lie, but I suspect not. If not, for Iran to proceed across the gap (what gap, explained below), first it will have to get rid of the Ayatollah.

The gap: being the distance between legally allowed nuclear science, under the NPT, and forbidden. Unfortunately, the gap is quite small, thanks to the morons who drew up the treaty. Uranium can be enriched to pretty high levels for "medical purposes", and lo and behold the Iranians have done exactly that. Centrifuges can be built in essentially unlimited numbers, and lo and behold ... I think it's clear that Iran will make the gap as small as possible - what's not clear is whether it will then pause, or go straight for the bomb. I'd be surprised if there aren't internal divisions on the question.

To make Iran less interested in the bomb, pressure Turkey and Pakistan to make nice with them. Turkey is more important, and since it's a member of NATO, the West has some influence. And of course, stop threatening them. Accept the Brazil-Turkey framework for resolving the issues over the Iranian nuclear program.

And by the way, whoever you quoted about Obama not attacking Iran before the election must be crazy. If he doesn't want war, he doesn't want war, but timing it to give up a potential rally-around-the-leader effect? Not a chance.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Interesting perspective Ayatollah, haven't heard it quit like that before.

 

[Takhisis]

So if the clergy says it's haram, this might be a bluff by the Ahmadinejad-led group of militarists to gain more power, and keep people busy on both the home and foreign fronts.

That said, let's hope none of the high-ranking clerics start dying off of mysterious diseases and strange car accidents.

 

[bombshoo]

The Iranian Supreme Leader says that nuclear weapons are haram (sinful). I suppose that might just be a bald-faced lie, but I suspect not. If not, for Iran to proceed across the gap (what gap, explained below), first it will have to get rid of the Ayatollah.

The gap: being the distance between legally allowed nuclear science, under the NPT, and forbidden. Unfortunately, the gap is quite small, thanks to the morons who drew up the treaty. Uranium can be enriched to pretty high levels for "medical purposes", and lo and behold the Iranians have done exactly that. Centrifuges can be built in essentially unlimited numbers, and lo and behold ... I think it's clear that Iran will make the gap as small as possible - what's not clear is whether it will then pause, or go straight for the bomb. I'd be surprised if there aren't internal divisions on the question.

Being able to be able to make the bomb at any time, or similarly heavily hinting at it capabilities but officially having a policy of not discussing it (the Israel way, "nuclear ambiguity") is a very viable route and their is a good argument they might leave it at just that. I posted an article about it about five Iran threads back.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Nukes aren't saving Pakistan, either. Keep in mind: the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power, didn't stop the U.S. from flying a squad of helicopters straight into their capitol zone and committing aggression ON PAKISTANI SOIL by shooting Osama bin Laden full of holes.

Kinda like all the US nukes didnt stop Osama bin laden flying a plane into the world trade towers. right? RIGHT ?

The US should have skipped the whole invading country and pouring in money and blood for ten years and just shot bin laden into the face. A few a squad of helicopters running around laying the smack down on terrorists better then nukes.

 

[BasketCase]

It makes you that much safer to have the biggest gun in the place because you're simply the biggest bully in the playground. It also helps when your population is in the hundreds of millions, half the rest of the world has been devastated by war and you can scare everyone into believing there's Reds under the bed.
Also, if you fear nothing, why the need to be safe?

That was my whole point. The U.S. didn't need nukes, right? But we continued to build them anyway. Even if the U.S. disarmed itself, Iran would still want nukes. Not for safety, but to be bigger and badder than the creampuff it currently is.

Let me quote the relevant part from the thread Zelig linked. It includes BOLDFACE so I'm sure you'll be able to comprehend it.

Forget it. My answer to Zelig remains the same: his hypothetical is pointless.

Kinda like all the US nukes didnt stop Osama bin laden flying a plane into the world trade towers. right? RIGHT ?

Right. So you agree with me: Iran will gain no deterrent value from having nukes, therefore there's no reason for Iran to have nukes.

Right?

RIGHT?

The US should have skipped the whole invading country and pouring in money and blood for ten years and just shot bin laden into the face. A few a squad of helicopters running around laying the smack down on terrorists better then nukes.

Which would have worked fine--if we'd known where Osama was. Next time, folks will be a lot more willing to tell us where the fugitive dirtbag is. The fear of another Afghan war? THAT is a deterrent......

 

[emzie]

Forget it. My answer to Zelig remains the same: his hypothetical is pointless.

I know you're a stubborn person, but the inability to comprehend and address a hypothetical really does out you as someone unable to comprehend and address anything more complex than doing up your shoelaces. Moderator Action: Please don't troll around. I'm not trying to be overly venomous, it's just that you seem to be unable to rise above a junior high level of discourse in this thread. I know you're not that stupid. You should really just suck up your pride and think through what Zelig addressed.

 

[Takhisis]

That was my whole point. The U.S. didn't need nukes, right? But we continued to build them anyway. Even if the U.S. disarmed itself, Iran would still want nukes. Not for safety, but to be bigger and badder than the creampuff it currently is.

You agree that the US' nuclear arsenal was built only to be bigger and badder than everybody else, you just wanted to be able to bully the rest of the world.

Right. So you agree with me: Iran will gain no deterrent value from having nukes, therefore there's no reason for Iran to have nukes.

Right?

RIGHT?

The U.S. gains no deterrent value from having nukes (take intoa ccount all the multiple account of attacks against U.S. personnel and embassies and stuff around the world) therefore there's no reason for the US to have nukes.

Which would have worked fine--if we'd known where Osama was. Next time, folks will be a lot more willing to tell us where the fugitive dirtbag is. The fear of another Afghan war? THAT is a deterrent......

Under the basic principle of reciprocity I propose that whenever U.S. citizens kill foreign natonals their governments are allowed to carry out assassinations against the culprits.

 

[KaiserElectric]

I don't mean to sound like a warmonger, but I honestly believe the world would be a better place if the current regime in Iran was destroyed. There are people in Iran who hate the regime, and I feel that if Obama gives them the encouragement to rebel like Reagan did to the Communist block countries that there could be a second Iranian revolution to throw the theocracy out of power. We could have legitimate peace in the Middle East with a new Iranian government. Not to mention that most of the world's terrorist groups will lose their main source of income with Iran off the table.

 

[BasketCase]

You agree that the US' nuclear arsenal was built only to be bigger and badder than everybody else, you just wanted to be able to bully the rest of the world.

Nope. I disagree.

The U.S. gains no deterrent value from having nukes (take intoa ccount all the multiple account of attacks against U.S. personnel and embassies and stuff around the world)

Of course the U.S. gets deterrent value from its nukes. Against other threats besides terrorist scum. The whole reason our enemies resort to terrorism is to avoid giving us a target large enough to actually nuke (and also to make it unclear exactly who or where the perpetrators actually are).

Under the basic principle of reciprocity I propose that whenever U.S. citizens kill foreign natonals their governments are allowed to carry out assassinations against the culprits.

And the U.S. military has 9,000 M1A1 Abrams tanks that decline your proposal.


All of which is completely irrelevant anyway. Doesn't matter if the U.S. is hypocritical, or a bully, or a hypocritical bully. Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, because the country's leadership is shot through with REAL crazies who must not be allowed to get them, ever. Once Iran becomes a properly-functional Democracy, and its religious practices are evicted from the halls of government, then they can have nukes.

Not before.

I don't mean to sound like a warmonger, but I honestly believe the world would be a better place if the current regime in Iran was destroyed.

Amen to that. And you get ten points for specifying that the Iranian regime needs to be destroyed. It's the Iranian government, not the Iranian people, who are the problem.