Can we live with a Nuclear Iran?

[cascadian]

I'd say this info, added to the already impressive numbers of citations already amassed, should serve to humble you, or at least shut you and Bill up.

Oh my... what a shocking revelation. Some isolated incidents totally demonstrate a "hot war" with Iran from 1979 till the present.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Killing <> war
try again if you like

Yep armed attacks which kill Americans is not equivalent to waging a hot war. :roll:

Why because it was supposed to be funny? I don't get it.

Is this another statement that's not meant to be taken literally?

Your ignorance is astounding watch the movie "obsession" and then come back and tell me how "death to America" isn't Iran's national motto.

I'm aware of your rationale, but I'm not afraid of imaginary bombs. To hilight my point: Samoa could be our ally, but that doesn't mean I trust them with a nuclear bomb.

Yep, a nuclear bomb in the hands of our ally is more of a concern than our enemy attempting to aquire one. :doh

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Lesseee here...ummmmm we have about 10,000 varying in yield sized thermo nukes left Russia has about the same...France has about 300, Israel has at least 100, we gave em to em, Britain has between 200 and 600, Pakistan and India have a few, China has who knows how many nukes...now...lesseee here agin...Iran has...none yet...that we know of unless somebody we are already at odds with sold them a few.

Now the Irani president may be a mouthy puffed up chest flake, but I don't think he's quite dumb enough to use a nuke if he has one against the U S or a western nation or Israel and is probablly praying to Allah that nobody else uses a nuke anywhere cuz he knows that Iran would be one of the first if not the first country to be turned into a gigantic puddle of irradiated glass.

Wrong, the ideology governing the state of Iran is irrationalist in nature and believes that the greater goals of the Ummah (muslim nation) trump the survival of the state:

"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world." -- Ruhollah Khomeini Speech in Qom 1980

 

[PolarComposite]

Wrong, the ideology governing the state of Iran is irrationalist in nature and believes that the greater goals of the Ummah (muslim nation) trump the survival of the state:

"We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world." -- Ruhollah Khomeini Speech in Qom 1980

FoRK Archive: US Nuclear Forces' interest in appearing irrational
North Korea's nuclear policy is not irrational at all | Guardian daily comment | Guardian Unlimited

You've heard of the theory of irrationality as a deterrent, right? Why is it so hard to grasp that another country may use over the top jingoistic rhetoric to appear overtly hostile and irrational to prevent being invaded by another country? In this case, US?

I'm not saying that I want Iran to have nukes. I'd love for no one to have them. I can see, however, why a country that does not have them would want one. It prevents you from being invaded. It removes preemptive warfare from the strategies of irrationalist hawks from other countries.

Let's not forget that nuclear research, proliferation, and rhetoric have all been on the rise since the most powerful country in the world, the one with the most nukes, decided that preemptive warfare was an acceptable form of international strategy. It isn't. It has only stoked the embers into fires.

So can I live with a nuclear Iran? Yes, I can. I don't want to, but there are plenty of leaders around the world I don't trust with nukes. Bottom line: Iranians have far more to fear from my country than I have to fear from their country.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You've heard of the theory of irrationality as a deterrent, right?
Why is it so hard to grasp that another country may use over the top jingoistic rhetoric to appear overtly hostile and irrational to prevent being invaded by another country? In this case, US?

Umm no because Iran's Islamist ideology specifically rejects rational positivism it's not just their rhetoric it's their ideology.

I'm not saying that I want Iran to have nukes. I'd love for no one to have them. I can see, however, why a country that does not have them would want one. It prevents you from being invaded. It removes preemptive warfare from the strategies of irrationalist hawks from other countries.

Let's not forget that nuclear research, proliferation, and rhetoric have all been on the rise since the most powerful country in the world, the one with the most nukes, decided that preemptive warfare was an acceptable form of international strategy. It isn't. It has only stoked the embers into fires.

Pre-emption has always been an accepted form of military tactic nice try.

So can I live with a nuclear Iran? Yes, I can. I don't want to, but there are plenty of leaders around the world I don't trust with nukes. Bottom line: Iranians have far more to fear from my country than I have to fear from their country.

A) A nuclear Iran means war so Iran can't live with a nuclear Iran the idea of a nuclear armed Islamist state is simply unacceptable.

B) Iran would have nothing to fear if they ended their nuclear program and suspended their support for international terrorism.

 

[Lightdemon]

IRAN WANTS TO CONQUER THE WORLD AND RULE IT UNDER SHARIAH LAW AND WILL NOT BE DETERRED FROM TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THAT GOAL.

And doesn't the US want to "spread democracy" to all corners of the world? Particularly the middle east?

Can't I just substitute IRAN with the US, and Shariah Law with Democracy?

 

[Lightdemon]

I know that a nucliar Iran sure wouldn't choose to live with us, so no.

So? Russia sure didn't like us, and they had nukes, and we lived thru the Cold War without MAD.

 

[ARealConservative]

I hope so because it is inevitable. You can't suppress technological advances by force for ever.

 

[Lightdemon]

Pre-emption has always been an accepted form of military tactic nice try.

Actually no, it has not always been accepted. Case in point, U-boats and Q-boats. Rules of engagement changed after WWII, but before that, usually armies would give some sort of warning before they attacked, such as trumpets and drums. Pre-emption was seen as immoral.

Anyway, going back on topic....

How come Iran can live with a nuclear US? How can they live with a nuclear Pakistan?

A) A nuclear Iran means war so Iran can't live with a nuclear Iran the idea of a nuclear armed Islamist state is simply unacceptable.

And yet North Korea, who violated the Agreed Framework, is seen less of a threat than Iran? North Korea who has broken agreements on attaining nuclear weapons, is not worth going to war for? Yet if Iran even attempts to get nuclear weapons, we get all these doomsayers? What kind of horsesh!t is this?

B) Iran would have nothing to fear if they ended their nuclear program and suspended their support for international terrorism.

Well obviosly Iran isn't blind. Saddam didn't have WMDs and look at him.

 

[cascadian]

Yep armed attacks which kill Americans is not equivalent to waging a hot war.

Most killing involves someone being armed. American's kill each other all the time. That doesn't mean we're in a civil war.

War generally involves militaries fighting each other. This has not been a consistent situation since 1979, not even close.

There's no need to inflate Iran's hostility to make your case, I don't know why you're clinging to that.

Your ignorance is astounding

Looks like your arguments are so lame that you are resorting to an ad hominem. Excellent form Trajan.

watch the movie "obsession" and then come back and tell me how "death to America" isn't Iran's national motto.

Not to pronounce judgment on "Obsession", it might be a fine movie, but I've seen plenty of anti-islamic fear mongering material. So don't think I'm in the dark regarding your world-view.

You've gone back to your original hyperbole ('national motto'), and I'm not sure what you expect me to do. You want to me to point out again that it's wrong?

 

[cascadian]

Yep, a nuclear bomb in the hands of our ally is more of a concern than our enemy attempting to aquire one.

Sorry for the multi post, but ...

Obtaining someone else's nuclear bomb can be easier than creating your own. Pakistan suffered a military coup not that long ago and has a history of such things. It's hard for me to consider it stable. It has significant anti-american sentiment among it's citizens, and semi-lawless areas supposedly under it's jurisdiction. And whether it supports it or not, has a considerable amount of anti-american terrorist activity. Does Daniel Pearl ring a bell? How about Osama Bin Laden?

This is not to say I lose sleep over Pakistan, but it's still more worrisome than imaginary bombs.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Actually no, it has not always been accepted. Case in point, U-boats and Q-boats. Rules of engagement changed after WWII, but before that, usually armies would give some sort of warning before they attacked, such as trumpets and drums. Pre-emption was seen as immoral.

Anyway, going back on topic....

Preemption is not immoral, what is immoral is giving an imminent threat the upper hand by allowing them to attack you first.

How come Iran can live with a nuclear US? How can they live with a nuclear Pakistan?

Pakistan and the U.S. aren't threatening to wipe them off the map.

And yet North Korea, who violated the Agreed Framework, is seen less of a threat than Iran? North Korea who has broken agreements on attaining nuclear weapons, is not worth going to war for? Yet if Iran even attempts to get nuclear weapons, we get all these doomsayers? What kind of horsesh!t is this?

North Korea's government is not founded on an irrationalist Islamist ideology.

Well obviosly Iran isn't blind. Saddam didn't have WMDs and look at him.

We found WMD's and we found the programs.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Most killing involves someone being armed. American's kill each other all the time. That doesn't mean we're in a civil war.

War generally involves militaries fighting each other. This has not been a consistent situation since 1979, not even close.

There's no need to inflate Iran's hostility to make your case, I don't know why you're clinging to that.

Hezbollah is a proxy paramilitary arm of the Iranian government.

Not to pronounce judgment on "Obsession", it might be a fine movie, but I've seen plenty of anti-islamic fear mongering material. So don't think I'm in the dark regarding your world-view.

The movie shows the large Iranian crowds chanting death to America, and your denial of this fact that it is a common and encouraged phrase either signifies your apologetics or your ignorance.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Sorry for the multi post, but ...

Obtaining someone else's nuclear bomb can be easier than creating your own. Pakistan suffered a military coup not that long ago and has a history of such things. It's hard for me to consider it stable. It has significant anti-american sentiment among it's citizens, and semi-lawless areas supposedly under it's jurisdiction. And whether it supports it or not, has a considerable amount of anti-american terrorist activity. Does Daniel Pearl ring a bell? How about Osama Bin Laden?

This is not to say I lose sleep over Pakistan, but it's still more worrisome than imaginary bombs.

Yep our ally in the war on terror having a nuclear bomb is much more of a threat than our enemy attempting to obtain one. :roll:

 

[scourge99]

How come Iran can live with a nuclear US? How can they live with a nuclear Pakistan?

I think there is more fear from secret nuclear development than an open development. If we know someone has the bomb then we are much more likely to KNOW who was responsible if one is ever used. That is true until a bunch more countries develop the bomb.

Why do people get so irritated that we don't help people develop WMDS? We disagree with nuclear proliferation for the same reason the US govt restricts US companies from selling high-tech weapons to selected countries. You don't arm your enemies; you don't arm the insane; (except for the case when the insane hate your enemy)

 

[PolarComposite]

Umm no because Iran's Islamist ideology specifically rejects rational positivism it's not just their rhetoric it's their ideology.


Pre-emption has always been an accepted form of military tactic nice try.



A) A nuclear Iran means war so Iran can't live with a nuclear Iran the idea of a nuclear armed Islamist state is simply unacceptable.

B) Iran would have nothing to fear if they ended their nuclear program and suspended their support for international terrorism.

Who decides that rhetoric=ideology?

This is the problem. Pre-emptive warfare has not always been an accepted form of military tactic. Not even close. It has almost always been treated as an unacceptable military tactic. Read German history, or google "war guilt". A link and a quote for now, though.

Declaration Against Pre-emptive War

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) spelled out exactly what no nation can legally do in light of its commitments to uphold the U.N. Charter: 'Thus it would be illegal for a state to threaten force to secure territory from another State, or to cause it to follow or not follow certain political or economic paths'," according to Ann Fagan Ginger, Executive Director of the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute.

Which brings me to the last points. A-"A nuclear Iran means war". It is always conveniently forgotten that Iran has legitimate economic reasons for wanting nuclear technology. Lets them sell more oil. Of course, perhaps one day they'll say- "we have the bomb" but that doesn't make preemptive warfare to remove the advance of nuclear technology legal. B- "Iran would have nothing to fear if they ended their nuclear program". I'll refer you back to the bolded parts above.

If our administration continues to act as if the framework of international law does not bind them, then we should not be surprised when other countries follow suit. International law is an all or nothing affair.

 

[cascadian]

Hezbollah is a proxy paramilitary arm of the Iranian government.

Even if you could blithely pass that off, are you trying to say they've been fightin the US military consistently since1979?

The movie shows the large Iranian crowds chanting death to America, and your denial of this fact that it is a common and encouraged phrase

I didn't deny that it has been used in Iran and other places. I challenged whether it was Iran's national motto, which it is not.

either signifies your apologetics or your ignorance.

Once again resorting to the ad hominem. If you're going to accuse people of ignorance, you should at least understand their posts first.

Yep our ally in the war on terror having a nuclear bomb is much more of a threat than our enemy attempting to obtain one.

If you're worried about Iran, have you considered where Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan is from?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Who decides that rhetoric=ideology?

This is the problem. Pre-emptive warfare has not always been an accepted form of military tactic.

Yes it has.

Not even close. It has almost always been treated as an unacceptable military tactic.

No it hasn't.

Read German history, or google "war guilt". A link and a quote for now, though.

Declaration Against Pre-emptive War

Germany had already decided to invade Poland as proven by the secret protocal of the molotov-ribbentrop pace, Poland was never a threat to Germany.

"The International Court of Justice (ICJ) spelled out exactly what no nation can legally do in light of its commitments to uphold the U.N. Charter: 'Thus it would be illegal for a state to threaten force to secure territory from another State, or to cause it to follow or not follow certain political or economic paths'," according to Ann Fagan Ginger, Executive Director of the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute.

That has what exactly to do with pre-emptive war?

Which brings me to the last points. A-"A nuclear Iran means war". It is always conveniently forgotten that Iran has legitimate economic reasons for wanting nuclear technology. Lets them sell more oil. Of course, perhaps one day they'll say- "we have the bomb" but that doesn't make preemptive warfare to remove the advance of nuclear technology legal. B- "Iran would have nothing to fear if they ended their nuclear program". I'll refer you back to the bolded parts above.

If Iranian nuclear research is towards peaceful ends then explain why they have been running dual programs for the last few 2 decades one public the other private?

If our administration continues to act as if the framework of international law does not bind them, then we should not be surprised when other countries follow suit. International law is an all or nothing affair.

Preemptive war is not a violation of international law, the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons is a violation of international law as they are signatories to the non-proliferation treaty, their material and financial support of international terrorism is also a violation of international law. Liberating Iran and overthrowing their tyrannical government would not be a violation of international law infact it would be enforcing international law.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Even if you could blithely pass that off,

Are you asserting that Hezbollah is not a paramilitary proxy of Iran?

are you trying to say they've been fightin the US military consistently since1979?

There first act of war against the U.S. was taking our embassy people hostage, their military proxy Hezbollah has murdered U.S. citizens and military personel repeatedly, and they are now arming our enemies in Iraq and Afganistan.

I didn't deny that it has been used in Iran and other places. I challenged whether it was Iran's national motto, which it is not.

The point that you obviously don't comprehend is that Iran is an enemy of the U.S., who constantly calls for "death to America," I suggest you watch "obsession" and see some of the propaganda that runs on their state media.

If you're worried about Iran, have you considered where Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan is from?

Are you suggesting that AQ Khan was working at the behest of the Pakistani goverment to supply other nations with nuclear technology and expertise?

 

[Alborz Taha]

Latest disclosure about Iran's Clandestine Nuclear sites


Get more information on following address and post your commetnt.

PMOI - Details & cat=354f

 

[Lightdemon]

I think there is more fear from secret nuclear development than an open development. If we know someone has the bomb then we are much more likely to KNOW who was responsible if one is ever used. That is true until a bunch more countries develop the bomb.

Why do people get so irritated that we don't help people develop WMDS? We disagree with nuclear proliferation for the same reason the US govt restricts US companies from selling high-tech weapons to selected countries. You don't arm your enemies; you don't arm the insane; (except for the case when the insane hate your enemy)

Who gave the US the right to say who can and cannot get WMDS?

And it's not that people are irratated that the US doesn't help others develop WMDs. We aren't the only ones able to achieve that technology from scratch, you know. The iritating part comes from the US attitude that they are ones that determines whether you are allowed or not allowed to develop that technology. Was god who endowed the US with this responsiblity?

 

[rhinefire]

Given the monumental mountain of beauracracy we have to go through here to construct a nuclear plant due to safety, evironment and anti-trust issues, I am curious if Iran started today with the paperworrk, how long would it be before they went on-line. Also, who is actually doing the work and who are their vendors supplying all that is required. Are they more safety and environmentally aware than the techs at Chernobyl? Is Iran the sole governing body over all concerns on this project.
Last night I was watching MSNBC and I was convinced more than ever we will soon be at war with Iran as our congress (democrats)to declare the Revolutionary Guard a terroist group and this falls in line with GWB's war policy that would permit us to attack the "terrorist group" as part of his war on terror. A nuclear plant will fall also right in to his plans to open fire on Iran. I said this about a year after we dug in in Iraq: the REAL target is Iran and always has been.

 

[cascadian]

Are you asserting that Hezbollah is not a paramilitary proxy of Iran?

In the context of our discussion, US's support for the Mujahideens in Afghanistan during the ummm.. Cold War doesn't seem much different. And the Mujahideens were much more obviously and undeniably engaged in military combat with the USSR.

AFAIK, attacks by Hezbollah on US targets have been sporadic and are generally classified as terrorism.

The point that you obviously don't comprehend is that Iran is an enemy of the U.S., who constantly calls for "death to America,"

pfft... I'm just correcting your hyperboles until you say what you can actually back up.

Are you suggesting that AQ Khan was working at the behest of the Pakistani goverment to supply other nations with nuclear technology and expertise?

I'm suggesting that Pakistan is not the most responsible nuclear steward and their status as allies has more to do with realpolitik than any genuine good will. If you aren't worried about them leaking secrets to Iran, then why are you worried about Iran?

 

[scourge99]

Who gave the US the right to say who can and cannot get WMDS?

And it's not that people are irratated that the US doesn't help others develop WMDs. We aren't the only ones able to achieve that technology from scratch, you know. The iritating part comes from the US attitude that they are ones that determines whether you are allowed or not allowed to develop that technology. Was god who endowed the US with this responsiblity?

Don't think I completely disagree with you. I don't like the idea that we "police" countries anymore than you, but I think we have found out what happens when we stay neutral to countries trying to significantly change the status quo: Germany in WWII, Iraq in Desert Storm. This threat is compounded by the rise of technology that enables a single man to destroy an entire city block as well as rapid increase in religious fanaticism.

I don't believe we have ever been against Iran's nuclear energy program, only their intent to create nuclear fuel which can be used for power and weapons. Remember, the US or Russia offered to sell the nuclear fuel so they didn't have to produce it. That was rejected.

 

[Volker]

I don't believe we have ever been against Iran's nuclear energy program, only their intent to create nuclear fuel which can be used for power and weapons. Remember, the US or Russia offered to sell the nuclear fuel so they didn't have to produce it. That was rejected.

Russia offered the supply of enriched material and later a Russian-Iranian joint venture enrichment facility on Russian soil, the European Union did offer enriched uranium supply guarantees and Germany was and is proposing a plan of an international enrichment facility where Iran can participate. All these offers have been rejected so far.