The Iranian regime and nukes

[ecofarm]

I'm not worried about the regime using nukes. I'm not worried about North Korea using nukes. I'm a bit worried about Pakistan's nukes; I'd appreciate if the Russians could secure those.

I'm not worried about materials finding there way to terrorists. Sure, the regime is the most significant supporter of terrorism; however, that stuff is traceable (I figure).

This is what worries me: generations of darkness for millions of Persians. I expect the regime would turn Iran into another North Korea. No internet, only state media, no outside contact. No human rights. I have a problem with that. I don't think we should let that happen. The Persians deserve better. I look forward to a developed world.

 

[Coin]

If a part of the world keep bombing countries because some ones doesn't like the regime or the leader the world isn't being developed or walking forward.

 

[MadLib]

I'm not worried about the regime using nukes. I'm not worried about North Korea using nukes. I'm a bit worried about Pakistan's nukes; I'd appreciate if the Russians could secure those.

I'm not worried about materials finding there way to terrorists. Sure, the regime is the most significant supporter of terrorism; however, that stuff is traceable (I figure).

This is what worries me: generations of darkness for millions of Persians. I expect the regime would turn Iran into another North Korea. No internet, only state media, no outside contact. No human rights. I have a problem with that. I don't think we should let that happen. The Persians deserve better. I look forward to a developed world.

My biggest fear is that they'll have free reign in the Middle East once they have nukes, because the West will be unwilling to stand up to their expansionism. They will be able to greatly increase their support for Palestinian, Iraqi, and Lebanese terrorists without fear of reprisal from those whose interests are harmed by such behavior.

If they do get nukes, and we decide not to neutralize them, we might be forced to enter into a nuclear deal with our regional allies such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia to balance Iran's presence, and I don't trust either country to stay aligned with our interests once they get nukes; additionally, the inevitable fall of the Saudi monarchy might put the WMDs in the hands of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or another group that opposes us.

 

[ecofarm]

If a part of the world keep bombing countries because some ones doesn't like the regime or the leader the world isn't being developed or walking forward.

Because South Korea and Japan are not developed countries, right?

 

[Sharona]

My biggest fear is that they'll have free reign in the Middle East once they have nukes, because the West will be unwilling to stand up to their expansionism. They will be able to greatly increase their support for Palestinian, Iraqi, and Lebanese terrorists without fear of reprisal from those whose interests are harmed by such behavior.

If they do get nukes, and we decide not to neutralize them, we might be forced to enter into a nuclear deal with our regional allies such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia to balance Iran's presence, and I don't trust either country to stay aligned with our interests once they get nukes; additionally, the inevitable fall of the Saudi monarchy might put the WMDs in the hands of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or another group that opposes us.

Rohani prepared to shut Iran nuclear plant if West lifts sanctions

Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's new atomic energy chief, says the Islamic Republic is optimistic about the outcome of negotiations with world powers.

By Haaretz and Reuters | Sep. 16, 2013 | 7:46 PM |

Rohani prepared to shut Iran nuclear plant if West lifts sanctions - Middle East Israel News | Haaretz

 

[Medusa]

Because South Korea and Japan are not developed countries, right?

japan(and korea is dependent on your military

it is not " my nuke beats yours " game ,eco

if you can bomb japan

the other may bomb the others

 

[Medusa]

My biggest fear is that they'll have free reign in the Middle East once they have nukes, because the West will be unwilling to stand up to their expansionism. They will be able to greatly increase their support for Palestinian, Iraqi, and Lebanese terrorists without fear of reprisal from those whose interests are harmed by such behavior.

If they do get nukes, and we decide not to neutralize them, we might be forced to enter into a nuclear deal with our regional allies such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia to balance Iran's presence, and I don't trust either country to stay aligned with our interests once they get nukes; additionally, the inevitable fall of the Saudi monarchy might put the WMDs in the hands of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or another group that opposes us.

only USA has the right to develop nuclear weapons ?

 

[Serenity]

only USA has the right to develop nuclear weapons ?

Not necessarily. I'm not a fan of any Country having them but the reality is that there are already Countries that do and they aren't going away any time soon. If they can't be completely rid of them then the goal should be to at the very least minimize everyones nuclear arsenals.

Having said that, there are certain Countries that i am more ok with having them than i would be for others. Double standards sure, but i base my double standards on the practical reality of the moment and whose internal stability and political views I think could be the most likely to use the weapons in an act of madness or to allow them to get into the hands of terrorists. I'm more ok with the US, UK and France for example than i would ever be with Pakistan (to use just one example). Their current stockpile of nuclear weapons and related facilities has to be considered at risk given the presence of Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan and the country’s problematic security system. Added to that you have internal instability and differing political views.

I get where you are coming from but i disagree with your reasoning.

 

[Medusa]

Not necessarily. I'm not a fan of any Country having them but the reality is that there are already Countries that do and they aren't going away any time soon. If they can't be completely rid of them then the goal should be to at the very least minimize everyones nuclear arsenals.

Having said that, there are certain Countries that i am more ok with having them than i would be for others. Double standards sure, but i base my double standards on the practical reality of the moment and whose internal stability and political views I think could be the most likely to use the weapons in an act of madness or to allow them to get into the hands of terrorists. I'm more ok with the US, UK and France for example than i would ever be with Pakistan (to use just one example). Their current stockpile of nuclear weapons and related facilities has to be considered at risk given the presence of Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan and the country’s problematic security system. Added to that you have internal instability and differing political views.

I get where you are coming from but i disagree with your reasoning.

hi seren

el qeada terrorists had been trained by CİA against the soviets

l think CİA is as dangerous as radical islamists

and no as an anti imperialist l totally reject this double standard .

 

[ecofarm]

I get where you are coming from but i disagree with your reasoning.

The "reasoning" is based on false equivalence and absolutism.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

I'm not worried about the regime using nukes. I'm not worried about North Korea using nukes. I'm a bit worried about Pakistan's nukes; I'd appreciate if the Russians could secure those.

I'm not worried about materials finding there way to terrorists. Sure, the regime is the most significant supporter of terrorism; however, that stuff is traceable (I figure).

This is what worries me: generations of darkness for millions of Persians. I expect the regime would turn Iran into another North Korea. No internet, only state media, no outside contact. No human rights. I have a problem with that. I don't think we should let that happen. The Persians deserve better. I look forward to a developed world.

I agree. That would be worrying. For me, it isn't Iran using nukes (the regime knows that the US and Israel would obliterate them), rather, it's the geopolitical effects, both in the short and long term that are most worrisome.

 

[washunut]

I agree. That would be worrying. For me, it isn't Iran using nukes (the regime knows that the US and Israel would obliterate them), rather, it's the geopolitical effects, both in the short and long term that are most worrisome.

Lets be perfectly honest. If Iran was to hit Israel with a nuke, there would be no Israel to retaliate. The U.S. would say this is terrible and ask the U.N. to condemn the act.

 

[ecofarm]

Lets be perfectly honest. If Iran was to hit Israel with a nuke, there would be no Israel to retaliate. The U.S. would say this is terrible and ask the U.N. to condemn the act.

All of the Iranian regime's known and suspected nuke facilities would be obliterated in minutes and the Arab League would invade for regime change and nation building. I don't think the Grand Poobah wants that.

 

[washunut]

All of the Iranian regime's known and suspected nuke facilities would be obliterated in minutes and the Arab League would invade for regime change and nation building. I don't think the Grand Poobah wants that.

Who would do the bombing?? Even if someone did blow up their nukes at that point the second holocaust would be over and their would be minor damage to Iran. I am sure they would take that trade.

 

[ecofarm]

Who would do the bombing?? Even if someone did blow up their nukes at that point the second holocaust would be over and their would be minor damage to Iran. I am sure they would take that trade.

You can't be serious. Even a dirty bomb in Israel will end the existence of nuke facilities and the Iranian regime almost instantaneously. Russia would not consider ground assets.

 

[washunut]

You can't be serious. Even a dirty bomb in Israel will end the existence of nuke facilities and the Iranian regime almost instantaneously. Russia would not consider ground assets.

I don't agree that the regime would be toppled. Not sure you answered who you think would bomb Iran after Israel was destroyed.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

I'm not worried about the regime using nukes. I'm not worried about North Korea using nukes. I'm a bit worried about Pakistan's nukes; I'd appreciate if the Russians could secure those.

I'm not worried about materials finding there way to terrorists. Sure, the regime is the most significant supporter of terrorism; however, that stuff is traceable (I figure).

This is what worries me: generations of darkness for millions of Persians. I expect the regime would turn Iran into another North Korea. No internet, only state media, no outside contact. No human rights. I have a problem with that. I don't think we should let that happen. The Persians deserve better. I look forward to a developed world.

You should probably expand your understanding of the situation.....

 

[ecofarm]

I don't agree that the regime would be toppled. Not sure you answered who you think would bomb Iran after Israel was destroyed.

The Western world, the Arab League, the East African union, Joe's Steakhouse, Aunt Martha... you name it. Everyone would want in. Just a dirty bomb and it's goodbye facilities and regime.

 

[ecofarm]

You should probably expand your understanding of the situation.....

Save that crap for Bible study.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

Save that crap for Bible study.

t:

You really don't think Iran is a threat? You are really only worried about development? Man you are living in a hole.

 

[ecofarm]

You really don't think Iran is a threat? You are really only worried about development? Man you are living in a hole.

I don't think the Iranian regime has any delusions about getting away with a leaked dirty bomb, let alone a nuke. That's ridiculous.

The real concerns are the regime's regional influence and totalitarian domestic policy.