• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A simple question about Iran

It's Israel and Saudi Arabia that has wanted to blow Iran to Kingdom Come. Israel and Iran have had a shadow war going on for many years, mainly by land and air and now by sea. Last month, Iran claimed there was a terrorist attack that caused an explosion aboard one of their cargo ship about 50 miles off the coast of Israel.

Israel has been attacking ships carrying Iranian oil and weapons through the eastern Mediterranean and Red Seas. Iran quietly responded with its own clandestine attacks. The latest came two weeks ago, when an Israeli-owned container ship, the Lori, was hit by an Iranian missile in the Arabian Sea. The Israeli campaign against Iranian vessels has been confirmed by American, Israeli and Iranian officials. Israel is bombing Iranian ships that are carrying oil to circumvent the sanctions that Trump imposed.

Iran is being starved by the sanctions and they're surrounded by their enemies, why would anyone even question why they want to develop nuclear bomb capabilities? The nuclear deal made in 2015 between the US and the JCPOA placed significant restrictions on Iran in exchange for sanctions relief. It was working until Trump gummed it all up.


Doesn't sound like it was working from your point of view, for you want Iran to have nukes, then support the JCPOA, which prevents Iran from having nuclear warheads. Trump merely saw Iran still testing ballistic missiles all the while enriching uranium....so why an agreement when they weren't even living up to it? Trump did not just sit back and allow Iran to keep breaking the agreement and did the Presidential thing and brought back the sanctions on Iran.
 
Yes, poor lil Israel using the biggest bully on the planet to help them with their apartheid state. :(
Who is "the biggest bully on the planet"?
 
If any country can have nuclear weapons, then all countries should be able to have nuclear weapons. Get rid of all nuclear weapons.
 
Last edited:
From the article:



"But, the United Nations Security Council resolution (Paragraph 3 of Annex B of resolution 2231, 2015) is clear. The resolution “calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.”
The second UN Security Council resolution 1929 indicates “Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities”.
Yes - I read it. The whole thing.
 
Since we opened our borders, why not?......let Iran have nukes, what the hell! Let's help in starting WWIII....so what if they blow Israel to Kingdom Come.......poor little Iran.

559c65.jpg
 
There is nothing in that link that shows the missile is capable of carrying nuclear warheads. It just asserts it with no evidence.



This article is more detailed on the missile program in Iran and gives specifics on the many missiles they have in their arsenal.
 

This article is more detailed on the missile program in Iran and gives specifics on the many missiles they have in their arsenal.

Please quote the exact part in that link where it shows Iran’s missiles can carry nuclear warheads.
 
Please quote the exact part in that link where it shows Iran’s missiles can carry nuclear warheads.

Sure:


According to reliable media reports and what Iranian authorities have stated so far, an array of short and medium-range ballistic missiles has been manufactured and successfully tested in Iran: Sejjil are the first long-range, two-stage, solid-fueled ballistic missiles in Iran with an operational range of nearly 2,000 km; Shahab, which are manufactured in three types of Shahab 1, 2, and 3 are the most famous generation of Iranian-made missiles; Shahab 1 with a range of 300km, Shahab 2 with a range of 500 km, and Shahab 3 with a range of 1.300-1,700 km are liquid-fueled missiles; Khalij Fars (Persian Gulf) missiles are supersonic ballistic missiles that can carry a warhead of up to 500 kg and could strike 90-100 tons warships; Ghadr-110 missiles are one of other generation of ballistic missiles with a range of more than 2,000 kilometers. Ghadar-110 is the improved model of the Shahab 3 missiles. Khorramshahr is another Iranian missile with a range of more than 2,000 kilometers. It is without fins and capable of carrying up to 1800 kg warheads; Ghiam-1 is the first without fins ballistic missile with a range of 800 km and carries a 746 kg warhead.


Next, you will have to do a small bit of homework and find out the weights of nuclear warheads, as they very......but these missiles can easily carry a nuclear warhead.
 
Sure:


According to reliable media reports and what Iranian authorities have stated so far, an array of short and medium-range ballistic missiles has been manufactured and successfully tested in Iran: Sejjil are the first long-range, two-stage, solid-fueled ballistic missiles in Iran with an operational range of nearly 2,000 km; Shahab, which are manufactured in three types of Shahab 1, 2, and 3 are the most famous generation of Iranian-made missiles; Shahab 1 with a range of 300km, Shahab 2 with a range of 500 km, and Shahab 3 with a range of 1.300-1,700 km are liquid-fueled missiles; Khalij Fars (Persian Gulf) missiles are supersonic ballistic missiles that can carry a warhead of up to 500 kg and could strike 90-100 tons warships; Ghadr-110 missiles are one of other generation of ballistic missiles with a range of more than 2,000 kilometers. Ghadar-110 is the improved model of the Shahab 3 missiles. Khorramshahr is another Iranian missile with a range of more than 2,000 kilometers. It is without fins and capable of carrying up to 1800 kg warheads; Ghiam-1 is the first without fins ballistic missile with a range of 800 km and carries a 746 kg warhead.


Next, you will have to do a small bit of homework and find out the weights of nuclear warheads, as they very......but these missiles can easily carry a nuclear warhead.

If you think throw weight alone determines the capability to carry nuclear warheads, then it’s clear you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
If you think throw weight alone determines the capability to carry nuclear warheads, then it’s clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

Their missile payloads are capable of carrying 1100 to 4000 lbs.......are you Iranian?
 
Their missile payloads are capable of carrying 1100 to 4000 lbs.......are you Iranian?

Payload weight does not determine the capability of carrying nuclear weapons. The Popeye missile only has a payload capacity of 750 pounds, but it can carry a nuclear warhead.

Maybe you should do some research into the kinds of things missiles need to be able to carry them. (Here’s a clue to get you started: it has to do with fusing)
 
Doesn't sound like it was working from your point of view, for you want Iran to have nukes, then support the JCPOA, which prevents Iran from having nuclear warheads. Trump merely saw Iran still testing ballistic missiles all the while enriching uranium....so why an agreement when they weren't even living up to it? Trump did not just sit back and allow Iran to keep breaking the agreement and did the Presidential thing and brought back the sanctions on Iran.
Why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons? Why does anyone have the authority to tell any country they don't have the right to defend itself as one of their enemies do?
 
If you ran Iran, surrounded by enemies backed by the US, seeing what happened to Saddam without nuclear weapons and North Korea with them, would you or would you not want to develop nuclear weapons as the only protection you have from your adversaries?

They say they don't, and they did agree to at least put a hold on it in the Obama agreement and might do that again, but the question is, would you want to? Is there any real justification to try to prevent them other than wanting to be able to attack them more easily? While we could say it reduces danger, we don't try to remove others' weapons, specifically Israel's, a country that has assassinated many scientists.

I could broaden the topic to things like how reasonable it is for Iran to want security guarantees - however that could be enforced - if they did give them up, or our broader policy that 'only people we say can get nuclear weapons or who we can't stop can get them', but I'm just addressing the idea that Iran's leaders are some evil monsters if they did want them. If you would in their shoes...

There are legitimate reasons not to want a nuclear Iran, but we're largely causing the problem with our aggressive policy to them whether the 1950's installation of a pro-US dictator or our 1980's support for Saddam's war on them that causes a million casualties or our current activities that have them surrounded by enemies (though we unintentionally converted Iraq to an ally).

The blame America first style of international relations is back.

A few things:
1. Iran wishes to export Islamic fundamentalism.
2. Iran seeks to destroy Israel and the USA as they are their principal block in achieving # 1.
3. The USA did not install a dictator in the 1950s.
4. The USA did not support Iraq during the 80s. USA policy during the Iran-Iraq War was that nobody wins and that it go on for as long as possible.
 
Why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons? Why does anyone have the authority to tell any country they don't have the right to defend itself as one of their enemies do?

I think the whole idea of having nuclear weapons is humanity gone insane to the extreme, personally.......maybe just like some people we all know should never own a gun.
 
Yes, but for Biden and the left, it's everything contrary to Trump......he was gifted "Operation Warpspeed", a secure border, and historical inroads to peace in the MIddle East.....but he and the left will have nothing to do with any of it, because of their hatred of Trump and be damned to the consequences.
How is Biden's and the left's actions possibly not considered 'party before country' and / or 'ideology before country'? Or is that standard only applied to non-Democrats?
 
How is Biden's and the left's actions possibly not considered 'party before country' and / or 'ideology before country'? Or is that standard only applied to non-Democrats?

Their party's ideologies come first over country, without a doubt. They've opened our borders during a pandemic, releasing Covid infected illegal aliens within our country, caging up thousands of children in abusive conditions......passed a Covid relief bill which had very little to do with Covid relief......permitting boys to play alongside girls in sports across the country....desiring to pass the HR1 bill to essentially lock in their own party wins in future elections.....spreading misinformation concerning the Georgia voting Bill....and now want a massive infrastructure bill for their new green deal illusions. They are anything "but" country.....it's ALL about their ideology and the hell with the American People.
 
If you ran Iran, surrounded by enemies backed by the US, seeing what happened to Saddam without nuclear weapons and North Korea with them, would you or would you not want to develop nuclear weapons as the only protection you have from your adversaries?

They say they don't, and they did agree to at least put a hold on it in the Obama agreement and might do that again, but the question is, would you want to? Is there any real justification to try to prevent them other than wanting to be able to attack them more easily? While we could say it reduces danger, we don't try to remove others' weapons, specifically Israel's, a country that has assassinated many scientists.

I could broaden the topic to things like how reasonable it is for Iran to want security guarantees - however that could be enforced - if they did give them up, or our broader policy that 'only people we say can get nuclear weapons or who we can't stop can get them', but I'm just addressing the idea that Iran's leaders are some evil monsters if they did want them. If you would in their shoes...

There are legitimate reasons not to want a nuclear Iran, but we're largely causing the problem with our aggressive policy to them whether the 1950's installation of a pro-US dictator or our 1980's support for Saddam's war on them that causes a million casualties or our current activities that have them surrounded by enemies (though we unintentionally converted Iraq to an ally).
Iran sponsors terror. Have you forgotten about 9/11? Terrorists would love to get ahold of either nuclear material or a nuclear device and use it against us. Your hypothesis seems to be that we should either invent a time machine and change the past or just let Iran have nuclear weapons and material. How stupid.
 
Back
Top Bottom