The nuclear programme of Iran

No surprise here. Still not good news, because if the Dinner Jacket or the Ayatollahs ever lose control there's a risk of some of their nukes "accidentally" disappearing... and then being found in the middle of Tel Aviv.

breadloaf: Hey, I resemble that remark!

I don't even know if sanctions work on NK, even. Does Dear Leader have to worry about his private stash of stuff being whittled down? No. he keeps the military fed and happy, and it's business as usual. About all sactions do there is keep it from getting worse.

Because that's done a bang up job stopping them so far.

Both Iran and North Korea have proven the folly of economic and political sanctions either from individual nations or the UN.

That was kind of my point, yes. Sanctions don't seem to improve a situation. They only seem to pervent it from decaying more. Not much of a solution, if you ask me, it's just a band-aid.

Still better than nothing at all, though.

^ Sanctions are a band-aid on a rifle wound. Ineffective at best. Worse than nothing at worst.

While nothing is an unacceptable answer, sanctions are not the answer.

Better then bankrupting yourselves.

The only way Americans get on board with this is for Israel's sake.

edited 8th Nov '11 12:36:27 PM by johnnyfog

I'm not sure that siding with Iran is a viable option, though.

Or do you suggest simply staying out of it altogether?

I think they have the "right" to do it. Just like any other country too.

Besides... they aren't stupid enough to attack Israel anyway. I think they know exactly: We attack Israel = America's gonna kick our asses for good.

So yeah...

Oh yeah they are, just not directly yet. Ever hear of Hezbollah? Iranian funded and armed.

Them getting a nuke allows them to be obvious about their aims for Israel rather than subtle as they've been doing.

So? I don't see how that makes them dumb enough to attack an ally of the US. Financing terrorists is one thing... using a nuke is a completely different matter.

Tom, you appear to think that Iran is somesort of Card-Carrying Villain that seeks the nuke only to throw it at Israel first possible moment. There is a lot of rethoric, but I doubt Iran will take any direct actions against Israel. Cover, yes, but that's what everyone does. Including US who gave us such wonders as Taliban and Al-Qaida...

Now, personally I don't think anyone should have nukes, since those things ar epure evil, so yeah.

Tom seems to think that everyone who's not the US is either incompetent or evil.

Also I don't think that anyone's going to use a nuke in the near future. They're mostly there for scaring each other and that thing with Hiroshima and Nagasaki was complicated.

I don't think that Iran is a Card-Carrying Villain, but I side with Tom on this one, but for a different reason.

Basically, I'm worried about proliferation. Its one thing for North Korea get its hands on nukes as it was already backed by one nuclear power in China (though its still an awfully dangerous situation if North Korea decides to sell some of its weapons), its another for a complete pariah state to get access to them - one that has made it its mission to undermine any vision of global unity and peace that does not involve the dominance of shariah law. Imagine if, say, a guy like Qaddafi had had nukes during the uprising in Libya - he most certainly would have bombed Tripoli. If Iran sets this precedent that if you build nukes people will be forced to reckon with you, its only going to inspire even more horrible dictatorships to pursue nuclear weapons.

Can you imagine if the Syrians could threaten their protesters with nukes? Or worse, us the bomb as a way to remove cities of opposition?

There's also the high likelihood that Iran intends to teach what it has learned to terrorist organizations, and what then? Do you really want to live in a world where terrorists can take down whole cities? What would you do if terrorists smuggled a nuke into New York, Washington DC, Tel Aviv, Paris, or London? Or even if they could just use the legitimate threat of doing so as a way to force their agendas on peoples who want freedom of religion and thought?

This is one bud that has to be nipped before it gets the chance to blossom. Does it suck that it must be dealt with, and likely in a brutal fashion? Of course. But we have no choice - we cannot allow other nations the right to "self determination" if they use that right to deny other nations the same.

Indeed. Several times some potheads have said "We should use nukes!" and their leaders told them to shut up. Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed us how deadly those thigsn are, and those were small compared to what we got now.

If nukes were something people would use, Cold War wouldn't have been cold, now would it?

Nukes can only be used against foreign powers. If a country bombs itself, that's sorta a self-solving situation.

The only legitimate fear here is that Iran may use nuclear weapons against Israel. However, if you balance the facts, the truth of the matter is that Israel is the clear aggressor in most matters. For instance, someone mentioned Hezbollah. It formed because Mossad agents in the CIA got Americans to drop a car bomb in Lebanon that killed hundreds of civilians and wiped out the Islamic faction that was anti-Hezbollah. Thereafter, Hezbollah gained prominence. Israel created the problem themselves.

Israel is the one that has been invading other countries but they didn't use nuclear weapons because that would be suicidal for them.

Likewise, Iran has no ability to use nuclear weapons because it would be suicidal for them. So far, as I've seen in the IAEA report, Iran has laid the groundwork for nuclear weapons capability and has all the facilities to do so, but haven't actually gone ahead to make nuclear weapons yet. That could change in the future, and likely, an Israeli attack would jump-start that program.

So yeah, I don't like proliferation but without a proper peace accord (like something that Israel would listen to) then what there is just conflict, and us going in and telling US enemies to drop their options of defence. It's never going to fly and that's the unfortunate truth.

Maybe we should just let them build nukes.

Basically what he said.

edited 8th Nov '11 3:06:36 PM by TheDeadMansLife

The fear with nukes is that a nutjob gets his hands on one. That's why the cold war was cold: both sides were complex, but both were rationally trying not to destroy the planet. If, say, a crazy terrorist got his hands on nukes, or the people who cause mass murders, car bombs, and 9-11 did, we would be screwed.

I don't trust Iran to not "Accidentally" give a nutjob a nuke.

Edit: This is probably Flame Bait. Never mind.

edited 8th Nov '11 4:00:57 PM by Ultrayellow

No nation deserves a nuking. None.

To be Frank the fact that A) North Korea has at least a nuke, B) North Korea is far closer to a rouge state than Iran, and C) there are no mushroom clouds over South Korea, makes Iran having nuclear weapons an issue of little importance.

@Fullof Stars: The act of threatening to use nukes on your own people is the least sane thing any ruler could ever do as it effectively makes you more a threat to your own people than literally any potential foreign occupier.

edited 8th Nov '11 6:13:29 PM by BigMadDraco

North Korea is hoping to take over South Korea, turning it into a radioactive wasteland will not do them any good. And even if they do have a nuke, it's going to be small and weak. Aditionaly,they have nothing to launch it with. No icbms, no cruise missles. They'd have to jury-rig it to a plane on a suicide mission.

I bet this blows over until at least 2012, if not the next term/administration.

And a nuclear strike on Jerusalem (Israel's capital) will damage, if not destroy, the Dome of the Rock and it is not in the interest of a theocracy to destroy sites you see as holy.

In addition, something on the Middle East unrest thread suggests the Iran's Government is a bit fuzzy right now.

Also, I would worry more about Pakistan's Nukes. All 200 of them.