0
   

Iran and Nukes

 
 
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 12:48 pm
I am interested in peoples' thoughts on two specific questions:

1. Do you think it likely that Iran is secretly working on nuclear weapons?
2. If Iran were to develop and amass a supply of nuclear weapons, how acceptable or unacceptable would you find it?

Feel free to discuss related issues in this thread, but I would ask that each post at least contain answers to these questions.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,362 • Replies: 31
No top replies

 
Ellinas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 01:07 pm
1. Iran is working on nuclear weapons, and I don't think this is a "secret".

2. I am against nuclear weapons in general, but from the moment Israel and Pakistan have nukes, it is stupid to tell that Iran must not have. Everyone or none.
0 Replies
 
freedom4free
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 02:00 pm
1. They're working on a massive scale, BUT they don't plan to develop as many as Saddam Hussain.

2. Totally unacceptable, not only is our oil under their sand, but they're selling it to communists. Now if they had W.M.D we'd have to buy our oil back in Euro's.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 02:16 pm
freedom4free wrote:
1. They're working on a massive scale, BUT they don't plan to develop as many as Saddam Hussain.

2. Totally unacceptable, not only is our oil under their sand, but they're selling it to communists. Now if they had W.M.D we'd have to buy our oil back in Euro's.

You fear that if you actually state your opinions, simply and factually, you couldn't defend them. You seem to do everything on this Politics board except engage in debate. To debate, you have to state your opinions understandably, and then respond to the logic of people who disagree. You apparently have neither the ability nor the inclination to do this.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 02:18 pm
1. It's hard to say. The facilities neccessary for the production of a nuclear weapon are quite large and difficult to keep 'secret,' especially in an environment such as this one.

I have no doubt they would like to have nukes, and who can blame them? It isn't as if they don't have enemies just as we do. I will note that they should announce their intentions to leave the NPT if they do so; then again, so should we.

2. I would find it acceptable for Iran to have nukes. Why not? I find it acceptable for Pakistan to have Nukes (and apparently you do too). I find it acceptable for Israel to have nukes, even though I strongly disagree with the existence of their country.

What makes Iran different? Nothing but opinion.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 03:29 pm
1. Personally, I have no doubts whatsoever that Iran has a serious nuclear weapons program, and that they will be able to produce nuclear weapons before the end of this decade ... probably within 3 years.

2. I don't like this question. Acceptable to who? If an Iranian nuclear arsenal is "unacceptable" then something must be done about it. Even if the UN and the United States say that an Iranian nuclear weapons program is "unacceptable", and they choose to do nothing effective about it, then for all practical purposes Iranian nuclear weapons are "acceptable" after all.

I think the question people should be thinking about is how great a risk are we willing to take that a nuclear-armed Iran will not use their arms to threaten, blackmail and undermine neighboring governments into supporting Iran's radical Islamic policies? How great a risk is there that Iran will act on its threatening Israeli annihilation by launching a nuclear warhead on Tel Aviv? Will an Iran already committed to supporting international terrorism, later transfer a nuclear weapon to Al Qaid, or some other extremist terror organization? What risk is the world willing to take that in a few years an Iranian Bomb will explode in Los Angeles, or New York Harbor? Would Iran hesitate any less to support a nuclear attack on London, Hamburg, or some other Infidel sea port?

Ultimately, we all have to understand if diplomacy does not succeed that the decision will rest entirely on the President of the United States who, we trust, will act in accordance with his best judgement of what is in the best interests of the United States.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 03:39 pm
I agree with Asherman. The word "acceptable" that is at the core of your second question is not defined.

I think it is a very bad thing that Iran will evidently have nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future.

There is nothing we can do about it that wouldn't have consequences that are worse than a nuclear Iran.

It looks as if we don't have any real choice other than to "accept" a nuclear Iran in the not too distant future--

... unless you think another Iraq (or worse) is acceptable.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 04:34 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
I agree with Asherman. The word "acceptable" that is at the core of your second question is not defined.

I asked to what degree you consider it acceptable. That is perfectly well defined. It means acceptable to you based on your own criteria.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 04:40 pm
who gives a ****? It's all a free for all now anyway.
Enjoy your life and when the big blast comes... well that's better than spending a few years battling cancer and puking up your teeth and shitting yourself.

I'd rather me and family sit right at ground zero than spend our lives walking around with our shoulders hunched up pissing our pants in fear of the enemy like certain unmentioned posters who are currently VERY close by.... . If we spend our entire life at war to make peace.... then we die bankrupt of life experience. F**k that.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 04:42 pm
I think I'll pick up my guitar and play.... just like yesterday....
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 04:56 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
I agree with Asherman. The word "acceptable" that is at the core of your second question is not defined.

I asked to what degree you consider it acceptable. That is perfectly well defined. It means acceptable to you based on your own criteria.


I don't want to get into a meaningless semantic argument (a meaningful semantic argument might be interesting, but I don't know if they exist.)

Let me point out that acceptable is a function of the situation. It is unacceptable for someone to cut open my scalp and remove a piece of my brain. However, in some circumstances (i.e. I have a tumor and need it removed to save my life) the consequences of not doing what would normally be unacceptable would make it acceptable.

If all of the alternatives are "more unacceptable" then the normally unacceptable becomes acceptable. Acceptability is a relative thing.

Saying a nuclear Iran is "unacceptable" is an easy call.

Until you look at what it would take to prevent this. Given the current mess in Iraq and the volatility of the region-- it may be acceptable by default.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 10:11 pm
The Reublicans have always held that individuals have a 'right to bear arms' and extending that logic means a corporate being or a nation has that same 'right to bear arms' regardless nuclear or otherwise.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Apr, 2006 10:12 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
who gives a ****? It's all a free for all now anyway.
Enjoy your life and when the big blast comes... well that's better than spending a few years battling cancer and puking up your teeth and shitting yourself.

I'd rather me and family sit right at ground zero than spend our lives walking around with our shoulders hunched up pissing our pants in fear of the enemy like certain unmentioned posters who are currently VERY close by.... . If we spend our entire life at war to make peace.... then we die bankrupt of life experience. F**k that.

If one believes that there is a real danger, then the rational thing to do is to face it and try to reduce it. To take the attitude that you cannot modify your environment, but simply have to accept it, is not very functional.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 06:43 am
what are you doing to actively reduce the threat of Iran? Something functional I hope....
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 07:42 am
Asherman wrote:
1. Personally, I have no doubts whatsoever that Iran has a serious nuclear weapons program, and that they will be able to produce nuclear weapons before the end of this decade ... probably within 3 years.



Out-of-toucherman, you have already been corrected regarding how fast Iran can fulfill their need to obtain nuclear weapons. It's five to ten years, not two or three. Iran has every right to obtain weapons to defend their sovereignity against madmen like Bush.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 08:26 am
Iran will do what it has within it's power to do. Short of nuking them, arguably an unacceptable and counterproductive option, we appear to be unable to stop them from doing whatever they choose in this arena.

As Thucydides observed "...right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

In this situation, thanks largely to the misadventures of the current administration we have a weak hand-- or at least a dearth of options--and must consequently suffer the Iranians to do what they will.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 08:31 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
who gives a ****? It's all a free for all now anyway.
Enjoy your life and when the big blast comes... well that's better than spending a few years battling cancer and puking up your teeth and shitting yourself.

I'd rather me and family sit right at ground zero than spend our lives walking around with our shoulders hunched up pissing our pants in fear of the enemy like certain unmentioned posters who are currently VERY close by.... . If we spend our entire life at war to make peace.... then we die bankrupt of life experience. F**k that.


Absolutely!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 09:22 am
Rox,

You've quoted a single source, My opinion is based on past experience and conversations with number of nuclear scientists (several of whom designed nuclear weapons before their retirement) of my acquaintance. Sorry, but I tend to believe knowledgable folks who I know over a source recommended by a child who can't seem to get beyond name calling.

What is that anyway? Do you really need applause from your playmates so bad, or is it that you think I'll be hurt by your shenanigans? Either way you're a pitiful person. Sometime try just posting a clear idea or response to another's opinions without name calling or words that are emotionally loaded and intended to insult. It really is possible to write disapprovingly about the President without using any of the large lexicon of insults you so favor. Try it. Those who read these threads might even have a betting pool on whether you can ever write without intending to offend.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 09:28 am
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
what are you doing to actively reduce the threat of Iran? Something functional I hope....

Personally, nothing. I'm a private citizen in a different sphere of business. Your argument that I cannot argue in favor of a government policy unless I implement it personally is nonsense.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Apr, 2006 09:53 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
what are you doing to actively reduce the threat of Iran? Something functional I hope....

Personally, nothing. I'm a private citizen in a different sphere of business. Your argument that I cannot argue in favor of a government policy unless I implement it personally is nonsense.


I keep hearing from the right that all the left does is complain and never has any solutions. My observation of the right is that like asshoes, you all have an opinion, but have no experience in what you talk about, and have no desire to do anything as an individual to help the situation.

Anon
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Iran and Nukes
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 09/19/2021 at 09:19:17