Iran and a Tiny Nuke?

[Whomp]

Hope...
Maybe I'm naive but I have some hope on the situation in Iran. It would be an especially positive event if they would compromise by enriching their uranium in Russia and would ensure peaceful use of nuclear power. Without this agreement I feel Israel will eventually be at enormous risk.

Hopefully in time there's another dynamic that will change life in Iran.
60% of the population in Iran is under the age of 30 and they are rebelling against restrictive Islamic rule.

In a recent show I watched they showed pictures of a prayer service at Tehran University. Virtually every man they panned to in the main hall was over the age of 50...not allowed on the main floor in the hallway were fully covered women. No young people.....check out some of these news stories from Al Jazeera and a very good one from NPR.

Here's me hoping...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=iranian+youth&btnG=Google+Search

 

[Verbose]

They want to nuke Israel.

No they don't.

They want to be ABLE to nuke Israel. After all Israel can nuke them anytime it pleases the Israelis.
So can the Americans, and the Americans are all around them by now.

Of course, no one expects Israelis or Americans to understand why this is considered a real concern in Iran. That would obviously be asking way too much.

 

[Xshayathiya]

the question is flawed. Nuclear power or Nuclear weapons? "Nukes" implies weapons, yet Iran has stated repetedly that they only want nuclear power.

EDIT: forgot my answer

Power: No
Weapons: Yes

 

[luiz]

No they don't.

They want to be ABLE to nuke Israel. After all Israel can nuke them anytime it pleases the Israelis.
So can the Americans, and the Americans are all around them by now.

Of course, no one expects Israelis or Americans to understand why this is considered a real concern in Iran. That would obviously be asking way too much.

Has the president of the US, or the prime-minister of Israel, ever stated that Iran must be wipped off the map?

One side is ruled by genocidal medieval demented clerics, the other is not. Which one is more likely to do something stupid?

Of course I agree that Iran has the right to have nukes, and I even think it might be rational for them to have them, for the reasons you mentioned. But lets not kid ourselves into thinking that Iran will restrain itself in the same way that Israel and the US do. If they had the opportunity to sneak a warhead to some terrorist aiming at Israel, I'm sure they'd do it.

 

[North King]

My conclusion is that you should move to Iran, based on your supposed evidence.

Oh yes, that's exactly what I said.

Try coming up with something which is both somewhat humorous and actually relating to what I posted next time.

 

[Yeeek]

If the US and/or its allie lead strike against Iranian facilities, wouldn't that create , Chernobyl alike scenario over there?

 

[Quasar1011]

2009 is optimistic. Iran could have a nuke this year.

 

[amadeus]

Oh yes, that's exactly what I said.

Try coming up with something which is both somewhat humorous and actually relating to what I posted next time.

You've gone to great lengths to see that the United States is morally inferior to the terrorist mullahs in Iran.

 

[Elrohir]

Let's see, Mr. Fanatic.Draw your own conclusions.

"Mr. Fanatic"? Can't you think up anything more original than that? Like "Paranoid Fundie Death Leader of Doom". "Mr. Fanatic" is a pathetic name to call someone; if you're going to insult someone, at least do so in a semi-damaging manner, to do otherwise just shows your stupidity, and we wouldn't want that, now would we? Despite your doing it so often and in such a blatant way, let's try and keep the stupid posts down to a minimum - which may involve you not posting ever again, but that's a risk I'm willing to take.

I'm not even going to touch the rest of your post. You are so obviously a wacked out moonbat that to do so would lower myself to your level. Suffice to say though, that America is infintely more free and tolerant a nation than Iran, and a much less danger.

I'm guessing the mods will have something to say about this post as well, but at the moment I don't care that much. Smacking down idiots is one of life's greater pleasures, and it's worth the occasional punishment.

Moderator Action: And punishment there shall be.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

If the US and/or its allie lead strike against Iranian facilities, wouldn't that create , Chernobyl alike scenario over there?

Not at all. First, the whole reason they don't have a nuke yet is they don't have enough enriched uranium to make a bomb, so they don't have critical mass yet. Airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities would not set off a nuclear explosion.

 

[Xshayathiya]

Not at all. First, the whole reason they don't have a nuke yet is they don't have enough enriched uranium to make a bomb, so they don't have critical mass yet. Airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities would not set off a nuclear explosion.

Actually bombing any nuclear facilities will not give off a nuclear explosion. Assuming the bomb is strong enough to break through the concrete in the calandria, the plant wouldn't explode. Actually what would happen would be fairly close to what happened in Chernobyl. If the calandria does break, then neutrons would start pouring out of the core, and that would be dangerous to anybody living in the area. Furthermore, the smoke would be carried by the wind. Not only that, Radon is in Uranium-238's decay chain, so that would also be carried by the wind. Pretty much the same thing that happened in chernobyl would happen, but on a larger scale because of the proximity of Isfahan, and its size (a little more than 2 million people). The radioactive materials would also be carried in all directions and would reach as far as Tehran in the north, Shiraz in the south, and maybe even Baghdad in the west and Afghanistan in the east.

Chernobyl was actually a fairly limited disaster. And since Minsk and Kiev were too far away to be majorly affected, fortunately the loss of life and radiation poisoning wasnt as high as it could have been. This would not be the case in Iran however.

 

[Yeeek]

So, this what would likely happens then. US couldn't occupy Iran like Iraq or Afghanistan, so strikes against its facilites seems more likely, is that right?

 

[nonconformist]

If they want nukes, give them nukes. I don't really care.

 

[Verbose]

Has the president of the US, or the prime-minister of Israel, ever stated that Iran must be wipped off the map?

One side is ruled by genocidal medieval demented clerics, the other is not. Which one is more likely to do something stupid?

Of course I agree that Iran has the right to have nukes, and I even think it might be rational for them to have them, for the reasons you mentioned. But lets not kid ourselves into thinking that Iran will restrain itself in the same way that Israel and the US do. If they had the opportunity to sneak a warhead to some terrorist aiming at Israel, I'm sure they'd do it.

The behaviour of the "demented clerics" has so far been a lot more consistent and predictable then the present US admin. Mostly they just want to conserve their position and keep their own people in their place — which is why they dislike this new motor-mouth president who got all the protest-votes.

Iran is the most modern country in the Middle East. Only it's choices won't fit with preconceived Western notions about what that should mean.
So Iran is a huge challenge, regardless who end up running it in the next decade or so.

And the risk that Iran will slip nukes to terrorists is nil. Too risky and the benefits are negligable.
The Mullahs don't want Israel destroyed as much as they like to have Israel as a boogeyman they can direct popular discontent at. Removing Israel would rob them of this possibilty of relieving internal preassure in society. Never mind the fact that Israel would meet out nuclear merry hell.
(If one assumes Iranians to be generally suicidal that can be disregard of course. Not that I get why people assume the Iranian leadership to be suicidal? They may take a callous position re. sacrificing others, but I've seen nothing self destructive in their behaviour so far.)

If you want to worry about nukes and Muslim terrorists, look to Pakistan. That's no stable regime, the nukes already exist and the radical Islamists are a lot more popular there than in Iran.
Iran in wonderfully stable, sane and non-suicidal by comparison. It just happens to be a nation that absolutely detests the US and Israel and will continue to do so regardless of how this country is run for some considerable time.

 

[CartesianFart]

If you want to worry about nukes and Muslim terrorists, look to Pakistan. That's no stable regime, the nukes already exist and the radical Islamists are a lot more popular there than in Iran.

In the frontier,yes there is more extremists.But the nation is stable give thanks to Perev Musharraf regime lenient toward Washington.I say Pakistan is more safer than Iran.

 

[Verbose]

Has the president of the US, or the prime-minister of Israel, ever stated that Iran must be wipped off the map?

One side is ruled by genocidal medieval demented clerics, the other is not. Which one is more likely to do something stupid?

Of course I agree that Iran has the right to have nukes, and I even think it might be rational for them to have them, for the reasons you mentioned. But lets not kid ourselves into thinking that Iran will restrain itself in the same way that Israel and the US do. If they had the opportunity to sneak a warhead to some terrorist aiming at Israel, I'm sure they'd do it.

More restrained that the US? Certainly.
(The US insulation from bad effects from its foreign policy bloopers is phenomenal. 50 years of crap policies in the Middle East and they still don't get it. Iran is considerably more at risk here than the US.)
As restrained as Israel? Probably.

The behaviour of the "demented clerics" has so far been a lot more consistent and predictable then the present US admin. Mostly they just want to conserve their position and keep their own people in their place — which is why they dislike this new motor-mouth president who got all the protest-votes and beat their candidate.

Iran is the most modern country in the Middle East. Only it's choices won't fit with preconceived Western notions about what that should mean.
So Iran is a huge challenge, regardless who end up running it in the next decade or so.

And the risk that Iran will slip nukes to terrorists is nil. Too risky and the benefits are negligable.
The Mullahs don't want Israel destroyed as much as they like to have Israel as a boogeyman they can direct popular discontent at. Removing Israel would rob them of this possibilty of relieving internal preassure in society. Never mind the fact that Israel would meet out nuclear merry hell.
(If one assumes Iranians to be generally suicidal that can be disregard of course. Not that I get why people assume the Iranian leadership to be suicidal? They may take a callous position re. sacrificing others, but I've seen nothing self destructive in their behaviour so far.)

If you want to worry about nukes and Muslim terrorists, look to Pakistan. That's no stable regime, the nukes already exist and the radical Islamists are a lot more popular there than in Iran.
Iran in wonderfully stable, sane and non-suicidal by comparison. It just happens to be a nation that absolutely detests the US and Israel and will continue to do so regardless of how this country is run for some considerable time.

 

[CartesianFart]

Iranians are also racist,have u guys checked their curricula in schools stating that Persians are far more superior than arabs and other asian counterparts?

 

[Verbose]

In the frontier,yes there is more extremists.But the nation is stable give thanks to Perev Musharraf regime lenient toward Washington.I say Pakistan is more safer than Iran.

No it's not.

Is that what people in the US think? Then no wonder their country tends to do such a piss poor job of steering a reasonable political course in the Mid East.

The frontier is entirely outside any form of controll from Islamabad. That's traditional.
Musharaff's problem is that he's got the fundies all around him locally. The tribes mind their own business, the international Islamic radicals are the ones looking for opportunities for sticking it to the US, and who would have an interest in the nukes.

Of course, Pakistan is very much an army with a country. But any time the preassure from the army can't be maintained, pretty much anybody might jump into the driver's seat.
Or failing that, no one will be in control, which is where the nukes might start wandering.

For the moment Pakistan in stable, but mid- to long-term it's anybody's guess how it will turn out.

 

[North King]

You've gone to great lengths to see that the United States is morally inferior to the terrorist mullahs in Iran.

No such thing; I've merely pointed out that no country has a sound moral base on which to posit their ownership of nuclear weapons.

See below before you post some one liner.

I'm not even going to touch the rest of your post. You are so obviously a wacked out moonbat that to do so would lower myself to your level. Suffice to say though, that America is infintely more free and tolerant a nation than Iran, and a much less danger.

Do realize I wasn't saying Iran was a moral state. I wasn't saying Iran was the pinnacle of religious freedom. Heck, I dislike Iran just about as much as you. The point I'm making is that NO nation should or can be trusted with nuclear weapons, and we'd be much better off without them altogether.

However, I also don't think that we should actively prevent Iran from gaining nuclear technology; why? Because it makes the world a safer place. Yes, that seems like an inherent contradiction, but I would beg to differ. We were much safer during the Cold War than we are now.

Despite our fears of getting blown up, no one but a completely insane ruler would inflict MAD on the world, and even in totalitarian states, there is the fact that it is filled with people just like you and me. Iranians and North Koreans are not robots. They have families, homes, children just like we do. And rest assured, they do NOT want them to die in nuclear destruction.

Now we have no nuclear deterrant, so there is much less reason for us to negotiate. Thus, we threaten and bully, and thus, they fight back in the most distasteful, but for them, the only way: terrorism.

I hope you'll take the time to read this post, instead of just taking snippets out of them and bashing it; either take the thing as a whole or put me on your ignore list, but don't take one sentence out of a paragraph and then bash that; it's something we've seen far too often and leads only to flame wars.

 

[RoboPig]

In the frontier,yes there is more extremists.But the nation is stable give thanks to Perev Musharraf regime lenient toward Washington.I say Pakistan is more safer than Iran.

musharraf is a military dictator who could easily go back to war with india, leading to a nuke strike in bombay, one of the largest cities in the world, killing millions! if the peace talks fail because of the energy pipeline then there will be war so it's pretty much the equivalent of a nuke hitting new york! now, will you continue to beleive that iran is more dangerous with a nuke or no?

 

[Xshayathiya]

Iranians are also racist,have u guys checked their curricula in schools stating that Persians are far more superior than arabs and other asian counterparts?

untrue. i am a product of that school system and i can assure you no such thing happens. Sure a few "Death to Isreal" and "Death to Americas" here and there, but we are not racist. Just because we are Aryan doesnt mean we consider ourselves superior.

EDIT: forgot to say, the "Death to" whatevers arent actually believed or wanted by the teachers or the students. Its just political propaganda. Half of those people have friends and relatives there.