Iran refuses EU's nuclear offer

[brennan]

Someone in that thread argued that other nations are only building nukes in order to counter U.S. nukes (or Indian or Russian nukes or whatever). I presented a counterexample: a nation that built nukes for some other reason entirely (the USA). I don't know what that reason was. Was the U.S. reckless, insane, or stupid at the time? I've got no idea; our leaders from that era ARE DEAD.

It was only 60 years ago and is very well documented. The US and Germany were both working on nuclear weapons, the Germans were defeated before they could finish (in fact their ability to continue this program was ended rather before this point). The US then continued with the Manhattan Project, and eventually decided to use the resulting devices to force Japan to surrender in the face of overwhelming force, rather than risk the enormous loss of life that would have resulted from US invasion and occupation of Japan. Following the end of WW2 the US and USSR pointlessly engaged in a nuclear arms race. Perhaps they were mad, they were certainly MAD and they scared the crap out of everybody else. The point is that US nukes were developed in response to Germanys pursuit of the same technology. The Germans did it because they were already embroiled in war and knew that such a weapon could easily win it for them, exactly the same reason the US finished theirs. Every developer since has done it in response to the presence of; or threat of the use of; existing nukes except Israel. The USSR built nukes because the US had them, China, and North Korea built them because the US had them. France and the UK built them so that the US had to take them seriously. Pakistan and India both built them because they could never be sure that the other was not building them (and of course they both were) Israel built them because they were surrounded by countries that wanted them dead. EXACTLY WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO DENY THEM TO IRAN? A country your leaders have described as 'evil', have trade embargoes against, threaten at every opportunity and which has recently invaded two of their neighbours for almost the exact same reasons you would invade Iran? Are you surprised that they think they must defend themselves, I am certainly not.

You attack me. I nuke you off the face of the planet, destroying your industry and economy. You can't build or buy any more weapons. You can't attack me any more. My nukes have deterred your conventional forces.

Er, no, they ATTACKED you. Your nukes have destroyed their conventional forces.

Kill the attacker, and he stops attacking you. Nuclear weapons are simply "bigger and better" weapons. The U.S. can manufacture far more of them than Iran can--and we can also shoot down Iran's. Therefore Iran's nuclear warheads will be worthless as a deterrent (the Soviet Union was a different matter).

You don't actually have SDI you know. And if you attack a nuclear Iran they will use what Nukes they have as tactical weapons, ie; to destroy your attacking forces on the battlefield. Will you, the aggressor, then up the ante to nuking cities? If so then may the rest of the world nuke you into oblivion. The alternative is for an attacked Iran to give terrorists nukes with which to infiltrate your cities - precisely what you want to avoid in the first place, but caused by your own policies.

Before nukes were invented, a more primitive version of MAD still existed: nations built big military forces in order to deter the other guy from attacking. World history has demonstrated very clearly that this didn't work perfectly. Smaller nations attacked bigger ones (with larger military forces) lots of times. Clearly, world leaders in the past were not rational. There is no reason to believe that world leaders today are rational..

I agree, I know of a country that recently invaded another on either false or stupid pretexts (hey can't decide which ones to justify themselves with) in direct contravention of international opinion, evidence, and their own national interests. Ans dismissing nukes merely as "bigger and better" weapons is hardly realistic, its like comparing a tank to a man with a pointed stick.

Closing note for Jorge: I do not know that
.....or any other nation, for that matter. However, I trust France, the UK, India, and Israel with their nukes because they are democratic nations. I do not trust Pakistan or China--or Iran--because they are run by freaking idiots...

When were you going to nuke Pakistan then, they only developed a nuclear capability recently but I recall no threats from the US. This is a little inconsistent. And do you trust North Korea?! A country that is almost totally cut off from the rest of the world, where the entire population seems brainwashed into thinking the US is the evil empire, and which has been at war with their closest neighbour since the 50's?

Edit: the bit I forgot to add--messing with Iran right now is a great idea. The sooner we get rid of the religious radicals over there, the better off the rest of the planet will be.

You think this is messing around? There is no reason for the US to attack Iran even if they are developing a nuclear capability I explained this in my last post.

The real enemy (of us all) is Al'Qaeda, do you want to take your eyes off the ball again?

 

[stormbind]

Germany historically was not trusted at that time. It was believed that the Germanic people had some kind of propensity for war mongering or something. JFYI.

Much like the USA is perceived today, then?

 

[Winner]

Irrational, insane, and/or stupid people become leaders of nations all the time. How do you know it won't happen with Iran? How do you know it hasn't already? You don't.

So I should presume they are nuts because you (or your gov.) say that?

Sorry, I need a little bit stronger evidence

There is simply nothing they'd get by using nuclear weapons. Yes, they can launch few obsolete nuclear warheads on Israel or the US bases in the area. In next turn, they'll be vaporized. Will that serve the purpose of islamic fundamentalism? I can't see how.

Iran now has plenty of chemical and biological weapons. Do they use it or give it to the terrorists? No.