a nuke instead of a peaceful supply of nuclear energy

like is it not possible at all to let them just get the energy and not a bomb

everytime i read a story on it, it says something to the effect of:

Quote :

"but the West fears it is intent on arming itself with nuclear weapons."

and it makes me wonder if they really do want a nuke or not

4/19/2006 9:41:43 PM

Iran wants a nuke.

It's just what happens when we arm their neighbors.

4/19/2006 9:44:30 PM

so there is like no chance they are trying to get "peaceful" energy purposes?

i mean i know its iran so we shouldnt trust them anyways, but dang if gas is almost like 3 dollars now

4/19/2006 9:48:26 PM

I'd say the chance is hovering somewhere around 0%.

4/19/2006 9:50:25 PM

well i dont get why the rest of the world aint doing shit if its near "0 percent"

not really criticizing you as much as the rest of the world

honestly, i DO think they are trying to make weapons, i just dont get why america is the only one worried about it

4/19/2006 9:51:47 PM

Same premise, but the bomb isn't ours this time

4/19/2006 9:53:57 PM

^^

well, what are you going to do

this is real politik, is we or anyone else attacks iran, we're in for a shit storm

if no one attacks iran, we're in for an even bigger shit storm a decade from now

for alot of people, it's easier to put their heads in the sand and act like it's not happening

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 9:57 PM. Reason : .]

4/19/2006 9:57:02 PM

It's not that the rest of the world isn't worried. Although, I've found their lack of response rather confusing myself.

My guess is that they're expecting us to take care of it.

The problem, if you haven't noticed, is that we're already bogged down with the war next door.

4/19/2006 9:58:00 PM

^^kinda like when hitler was doing all his shit and they went through that "appeasement" period?

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 9:59 PM. Reason : .]

4/19/2006 9:58:36 PM

It's not just the US that's concerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons. Europe is extremely concerned, israel is very concerned, even India recently made statements saying that Iran can not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Russia and China don't want Iran to have nukes, but they don't want war, they want it to be solved diplomatically, without sanctions. Russia even offered to enrich Uranium for Iran, truck it into the country to power their reactors, then truck out the spent rods back into Russia (so that Iran can not have nuclear weapons from spent fuel). This way Iran could have its nuclear power, it could strengthen its ties with a significant power (Russia), and could allay any fears that it would be developing said nuclear programs for nuclear weapons.

But no, they're either too arrogant to rely on another country (even one that hasn't been a super-big enemy in the past if I recall), or they actually are pursuing nuclear weapons.

Most countries we're pretty friendly to are concerned about Iran getting these weapons, and they're pretty sure that since they aren't taking any offers, it's probably nuclear weapons, not nationalism, that's the reason they're keeping their program going (and accelerating it to more centrifuges than are needed to support power production at a single plant).

4/19/2006 10:10:12 PM

^^



PEACE IN OUR TIME!

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 10:14 PM. Reason : ssdfsd]

4/19/2006 10:13:55 PM

^^ Pretty much sums it up.

When Iran refused Russia's offer, that did it for me. They're not after nuclear energy. They're looking for bombs.

4/19/2006 10:17:35 PM

ok well in 2 sentences or less, what do you think the outcome will be

4/19/2006 10:35:28 PM

It could easily go either way.

I'm not especially hopeful, though.

4/19/2006 10:36:39 PM

America, along with the rest of the world community, fail to resolve the situation diplomatically. Iran's facilities get bombed.

4/19/2006 10:37:23 PM

^
Ka.

Boom.

4/19/2006 10:38:15 PM

Quote :

"America, along with the rest of the world community, Iran fails to resolve the situation diplomatically. Iran's facilities get bombed."

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 10:40 PM. Reason : wrong tag]

4/19/2006 10:38:56 PM

yeah i like thedukes more than gamecats

oh and i just read what i would consider a good news article from yahoo

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060419/pl_nm/china_usa_dc_18

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 10:55 PM. Reason : .]

4/19/2006 10:53:02 PM

my god, i can't believe it...

this thread is overflowing with sheer blatant hypocrisy.

4/20/2006 1:30:20 PM

Do tell.

4/20/2006 1:37:59 PM

The problem isn't Iran wanting nukes.

The problem is Iran's nutjob of a president.

4/20/2006 1:45:05 PM

Not totally. I'd just as soon that NOBODY else get nukes...not even, say, Switzerland.

of course, i wouldn't be considering bombing them or anything.

4/20/2006 2:19:25 PM

That's just about the most high-minded, enlightening approach to our nation's nuclear proliferation policy I've ever heard come from a person who wanted to run for political office. I certainly hope that's part of the permanent platform.

4/20/2006 11:58:57 PM

This administration's foreign policy is shit.

[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 12:00 AM. Reason : Not like the next one will be any better.]

4/20/2006 11:59:40 PM

Quote :

"Do tell. "

he is just durka durkaing about the us and other nuclear powers telling poor iran they cant have nuclear weapons.

4/21/2006 1:19:51 PM

let 'em build a bomb. when they lob their single bomb at israel, then we drop 50 warheads on their cities.

done.

face it, like any technology, nuclear is just going to get cheaper and easier to reproduce. pretty soon every two-bit banana republic and third world nation will be making their own.

enforcing a non-proliferation strategy is ultimately impossible. like the kid with his finger in the dam, but soon youre gonna have a hundred different holes to plug.

i dont know what the solution will be, but non-proliferation isnt it. we're going to have to deal with the reality of impoverished, backwards, and unstable regimes eventually obtaining nuclear weapons. and we're going to have to figure out how to contain them.

4/22/2006 11:03:38 PM

i wonder how big a hole a nucular bomb would do

[Edited on April 22, 2006 at 11:55 PM. Reason : OH GOD I'M TURNING REPUBLICAN]

4/22/2006 11:54:52 PM

^^ it's not that non-proliferation isn't something we need to work hard at...it's just that we can't just say "ok, we're not gonna let anyone else get the bomb."

sooner or later, it'll probably happen...but non-proliferation is the first line of defense.


after that, things get messy. It's not a good solution, but I guess the next best thing to do is to make it clear that we won't stand for nuclear blackmail, and woe unto anyone crazy enough to actually make good on such a threat. This isn't cowboy, kill-em-all posturing when I say this, but I say that we should see to it that any country to wage a nuclear attack against us immediately and totally ceases to exist. MAD worked pretty well last time--it should only work better when it's not even mutual and simply becomes Assured Instant Non-negotiable Annihilation. I'm not talking about about just leveling their capitol...i'm suggesting that we turn every last square mile of the offending nation into radioactive dust (up to the point that we can without undue harm to neighboring countries). Make it orders of magnitude beyond "eye for an eye"...make it more like "if you slap me, I will grind your entire body into chuck." Make it so the whole world goes "Note to self: America is fucking crazy. Don't nuke them." That would ensure that such a horrible situation only happened once, and hopefully not in NYC or LA. It probably wouldn't even happen once, because I think that even the craziest of countries know that shit would get real in a hurry (or at least it would be a gamble I can't fathom ANYONE taking...although Saddam Hussein tested us twice in a little over a decade, albeit with lower stakes, and got a reaction from us that any idiot SHOULD'VE been able to see with his eyes closed).

The 3rd means of combating the threat is a missile defense...maybe not Reagan's "Star Wars" program (although maybe in the future when it's more within reach, techologically), but the laser-nosed 747 they're playing with now. In the era of MAD, many (most?) experts argued that such systems were strategically dangerous, b/c they essentially amounted to first-strike posturing, which understandably tended to make the USSR nervous (and would've had the same effect on us, had the shoe been on the other foot). Nervous=bad, just like backing a venemous snake into a corner. In this sort of scenario, though, I think a missile defense--if at least relatively effective and not cost prohibative--would be very valuable.




the big monkeywrench is obviously the scenario of a country with nukes having the tiny bit of sense needed to know that nuking us would mean the annihilation of every man, woman, child, and every other living thing in their country...but passing a nuke to a terrorist organization willing to deliver the attack for them.

THEN what do we do? Literally wipe a country off the map based on our intelligence reports that they were ultimately behind the attack? Even if we could be sure, how directly connected would they have to be to warrant destruction?

4/23/2006 3:02:09 AM

Quote :

"The 3rd means of combating the threat is a missile defense...maybe not Reagan's "Star Wars" program (although maybe in the future when it's more within reach, techologically), but the laser-nosed 747 they're playing with now. "

Let's hope they don't attack when the weather is bad!!!

Anyway, there won't be any nuclear attack unless the US initiates it. When's the last time a country attacked us or showed a real desire to do so? Other countries are a lot of things, even crazy, but they aren't suicidal.

^If you think nuking a country for the actions of terrorists will stop attacks, you're just as dumb as the people running the Iraq occupation. The harder you push, the harder people will push back. The world can easily turn on us as a result of disproportional response, especially if they think we are out of control. Overplaying one's hand is how countries fall, even powerful ones.

[Edited on April 23, 2006 at 3:19 AM. Reason : dsf]

4/23/2006 3:17:34 AM

Quote :

" If you think nuking a country for the actions of terrorists will stop attacks, you're just as dumb as the people running the Iraq occupation. The harder you push, the harder people will push back. The world can easily turn on us as a result of disproportional response, especially if they think we are out of control. Overplaying one's hand is how countries fall, even powerful ones. "

I agree, except Duke is not dumb.

4/23/2006 3:24:42 AM

Quote :

"Overplaying one's hand is how countries fall, even powerful ones."

i like that

4/23/2006 3:32:22 AM

Quote :

"^If you think nuking a country for the actions of terrorists will stop attacks, you're just as dumb as the people running the Iraq occupation. The harder you push, the harder people will push back. The world can easily turn on us as a result of disproportional response, especially if they think we are out of control. Overplaying one's hand is how countries fall, even powerful ones."

how did you get this from...

Quote :

"he big monkeywrench is obviously the scenario of a country with nukes having the tiny bit of sense needed to know that nuking us would mean the annihilation of every man, woman, child, and every other living thing in their country...but passing a nuke to a terrorist organization willing to deliver the attack for them. THEN what do we do? Literally wipe a country off the map based on our intelligence reports that they were ultimately behind the attack? Even if we could be sure, how directly connected would they have to be to warrant destruction?"

this?

I'll condense my previous post...

1. Anti-proliferation is good. First line of defense. Eliminates many problems before they start. Can't rely on it totally, though.

2. No country is gonna nuke us. It would be complete suicide by every measure, and we should see to it that we live up to what's expected of us, if by some off chance it actually happened (and by that, I mean to destroy the offending country, down to the very last cockroach).

3. Missile defense system=potentially good. Not necessarily the big league Star Wars deal, at least not right now. Maybe keep it on the back burner. Don't have to worry about first strike posturing in a MAD scenario anymore.

4. What happens if we get nuked by a non-state? Totally different from scenario #2, even if we're pretty sure the country didn't just accidentally let a nuke fall into the wrong hands (although that would be yet another scenario that would be tough to respond to). Even if we were, say, 85% sure--which might be really good by intelligence standards--we can't just turn a country into a smoking hole. Furthermore, there could be huge grey areas in terms of "how directly involved was the country in question?"



[Edited on April 23, 2006 at 4:00 PM. Reason : [b]]

4/23/2006 4:00:06 PM

Quote :

"Let's hope they don't attack when the weather is bad!!!"

I'm no expert on this system, but as an engineer and an aviator (and therefore somewhat familier with weather), you don't generally (if ever) see solid clouds across huge altitude variances. They're generally found in layers, and at the altitudes that 747s typically fly at--where I'd assume they'd want to be zapping incoming missiles/MIRVs/etc, you don't see many clouds (and almost never see a solid overcast layer...and even then, you could just go up or down a few thousand feet and get a clear shot).

I'm not saying that a missile defense is certain to be the silver bullet that never fails, and i'm not saying that weather could never contribute to a lucky shot, but I think it's worth working on some more (and I personally doubt that the weather issue couldn't be pretty easily overcome).

4/23/2006 4:06:50 PM