So as not to derail the "would Russia back Iran in a war?" thread even more, starting this doozy:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45209267/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
So Iran is in direct violation of the non-proliferation treaty that they signed. What now? Sanctions, or strikes?
All sides have exactly the same to lose in case of a nuclear war: everything. Nobody wins a nuclear exchange. Tel Aviv knows that. Tehran knows that. They know it in Riyadh and CERTAINLY know it in Washington. If the born-again Christians in the U.S. Government who had their praying hands ready to push the button all throughout the Cold War didn't start shit, the Iranians won't start shit either.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Well that depends on how crazy things get in Iran. There isn't a country on Earth that doesn't have insane people, and there's this unfortunate tendency for countries in deep trouble to succumb to dictatorial rule by lunatics. I'm not saying that Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are crazy enough to start a nuclear war, but who knows how crazy they'll get in the future or how crazy their successors will be.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.![]()
![]()
(oh God, here we go -_-) Why? Why on EARTH would the democratic Israel with major international relations be more likely to use nuclear weapons the the Extremist, terrorist supporting, marginally democratic and racist Rouge state of Iran (which is also extremely isolated).
EDIT- Removed accidental Redundancy
edited 1st Apr '12 1:39:25 PM by Joesolo
I'm baaaaaaackProbably the internal politics. Iranian politics, for all their oppression, are stable. The president, the ayatollahs, and the Republican Guard hold each other down pretty well and minority elements can't rock the boat. Israel, on the other hand, has a small minority of religious fanatics and pro-settlement extremist that can, due to the nature of the government, wield power far in excess of their parliamentary control and throw the national direction all topsy turvy.
Iran is a stable country run by some unstable people while Israel is an unstable country despite being run by mostly stable people.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this....I think you don't understand how government works. While the extremist minority in Israel does have more influence than it should, it's only in law making. Military decisions are carried out by the executive branch, and they're never elected to the office of Prime minister.
Mean while, Iran has those extremists in power already. If given nuclear weapons, they would be able to launch them whenever they want. The Israeli extremists don't have that kind of power. To get it they'd need to revolt against the government and take it by force which would fail MISERABLY.
Israel is a stable country with stable leadership, Iran is also stable...ish, but has unstable leaders. They already have complete power.
edited 1st Apr '12 2:27:31 PM by Joesolo
I'm baaaaaaackYou're right. I'll bring up the fatwas against nuclear weapons that the ayatollahs have issued instead. They're extremists, but they've got other things to be extremist about.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Not specifically Iran, but here,
Clerics issued one against narcotics and such, while the Taliban's main income is from poppies for opium.
The reason why Israel is the most likely to use nuclear weapons in the middle east, its because its the only one that haves them.
Point, set, match, game.
Also... Israel is Democratic in the same way Athens was democratic....
Or Apartheid South Africa was...
edited 2nd Apr '12 10:33:00 AM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
We're leaving Afghanistan so we have enough manpower to invade Iran.
That's totally ass-talk, by the way, but many of the Less Than One Percent actually believe it. I'm not sure how I feel about how accurate that guess is, but I wouldn't mind if we did. I'm tired of this peacekeeping bullshit, playing patty-cake with the ANA and ANP while waiting for one of them to shoot me in the back of the head while I'm sitting in a B-hut office with my M4 leaning against my chair.
I thought talking about Israel was a derail.
edited 2nd Apr '12 10:32:43 AM by Martello
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.I know, but Best Of said it was a derail. I don't actually agree. I guess until he comes back in here and makes a ruling, I'll keep going with you on it.
You're absolutely right that Israel's nukes are an incentive for Muslim Middle Eastern countries to develop their own, especially since almost all of them are Israel's enemies, whether officially or not.
Then again, Israel still officially denies having nukes, but I hope nobody's actually convinced by that. I'm glad they have them, personally, because they're the only country in the region we can trust to act more or less in our interest.
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.
It also highlights the double think going on here.
In fact Israel use the nuclear bombs to black mail Kissinger into giving them weapons to fight the arabs, during Yom Kipur war.
First they lied to the french about their nuclear program being peaceful and then they apparently made their first bomb by stealing uranium from the US.
So there ya go.
edited 2nd Apr '12 10:42:23 AM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
This.
We have that thread. Discuss Israel there. Or I guess you can talk about Israel's nukes as a motivation for Iran to try to get nukes too, but that's about as much talk about Israel's nukes as we should have.
Israel is one of those topics where we have to be extra careful to avoid derails. You can make a small side note in your post and the next time you check the thread there's three pages about that. So if we can refrain from focusing too much on such a controversial topic, we should.
Besides, there's already a thread for it (as mentioned in the above post,) and I'm glad that this has already been taken there.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.That's totally ass-talk, by the way, but many of the Less Than One Percent actually believe it. I'm not sure how I feel about how accurate that guess is, but I wouldn't mind if we did.
Do you have any idea how big Iran is? The last time you took on a country of that population size, it didn't end so well. And that was an underdeveloped country that was already in the middle of a civil war, with one side more or less supporting you. Iran is a major regional power with a strong central government and military. Even the US can't just walk in there... if you believe you can invade Iran without sparking an epic, bloody and long-running war, that's Pride fuckin' with ya.
Mache dich, mein Herze, rein...

I would say Israel is the side most likely to use them...
Or they would be if Pakistan didnt have them....
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.