What if Iran gets nuclear weapons?

[Thundercrack85]

Excuse me? You like to talk a lot of **** on these forums, thundercrack. That's insanely offensive. I gave numerous reasons as to why I came to that conclusion. Do not equate my stance to blind ignorance to a man who is responsible for the persecution of countless of my family members, the denial of their education, the loss of my parents jobs and their need to escape the country through gunfire while cradling two children. It's very ignorant of you and you're better than that. I put you on my ignore list for a reason, but unfortunately when you quote my posts, I get a notification for it.

Can you ever respond to a post of mine without getting emotional? I get that you have some sort of beef with me, but it's tiring. If you're this easily offended perhaps you should avoid this section of the forum.

Iran has a long history of dishonesty and secrecy when it comes to their nuclear program. You can't expect people to take a rogue state that is enriching uranium and defying all international sanctions at its word when it says it won't create a bomb. At this point they are using their ability to create one as a bargaining chip.

You're absolutely mental.

No, I know Israel has a nuclear arsenal which discourages Iran – or any other actor for that matter – from launching a nuclear attack on it.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Can you ever respond to a post of mine without getting emotional? I get that you have some sort of beef with me, but it's tiring. If you're this easily offended perhaps you should avoid this section of the forum.

Iran has a long history of dishonesty and secrecy when it comes to their nuclear program. You can't expect people to take a rogue state that is enriching uranium and defying all international sanctions at its word when it says it won't create a bomb. At this point they are using their ability to create one as a bargaining chip.

I'm passionate about social justice and you seem to find new ways to defy civility with every post you make quoting a post of mine directly, regardless of what area of the hype. Excuse me for being annoyed.

I posted an essay response as to why I believed what I posted and none of it was even remotely related to what the Regime's stated intentions are. Clearly you didn't actually read my post; either that or you didn't understand it.

No, I know Israel has a nuclear arsenal which discourages Iran – or any other actor for that matter – from launching a nuclear attack on it.

Mental for escalating things to such a distasteful post. It's poor form. Obviously Israel has the firepower, but why would you make an offhanded comment about something like that? See, it's when you say **** like this that I go "this man has no filter or regard for human life/social justice".

I'm done talking to you. Hippie can take it from here.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, I'm going to miss that sanctimonious grandstanding, but I think I'll get by.

 

[DeadPresident]

Human shields implies that they're being held against their will. Hamas wasn't forcing the residents of Gaza to act as human shields. Now while I certainly believe that there is a degree of complicity for Hamas in regards to the deaths of civilians in Gaza, but saying that they were using them as human shields goes a little far. I would say that Hamas unfortunately sees them as collateral damage.

But you also have to take into account other factors. The Gaza Strip is a very small parcel of territory that is extremely densely populated. They need to put those weapons somewhere but because there is no room for proper facilities in the Gaza Strip, Hamas has no choice but to utilize what they have. The Gaza Strip also has to deal with sanctions from the West and other Arab Nations, are blockaded by Israel and Egypt, and thus have no real way of remedying that situation.

Then they're psychologically coerced into being human shields. They're sold certain rhetoric by Hamas, to be fair, because Hamas knows that a dead Palestinian child on the news has a lot more value for their cause than a living one. They're as responsible for a lot of deaths of innocent Palestinians as the Israelis are.

 

[DeadPresident]

First and foremost, Iran does not have the bomb, nor does it have plans to have an a-bomb.

Second, the people of Iran would never allow an attack on Israel to go unpunished - one of the MANY reasons they're not openly at war with one another. The Government of Iran knows that if they strike first, the possibility of an internal revolution would become a reality. If Israel attacks Iran first, killing civilians, the Iranian people will gladly raise arms against their aggressors - not to defend the government (they ****ing hate the Islamic Regime), but to defend their motherland. I have never seen or heard of a group of people have as much love and attachment for their history and culture as the Iranians do (including Persians, Kurds, Turks, Mazandarani, etc). IF Israel attacked Iran, and it would undo all of the work that the opposition within Iran has done over the last decade due to nationalism and cultural pride (similar to how an uprising against Khomeini was prevented by the Iran/Iraq war).

Third, Netanyahu's words are often falling on deaf ears because people know that a) the manifesto of his politcal party calls for the demise (essentially genocide) of Palestinians b) he has a "preemptive strike" mentality and uses fear to back it up (see second point for outcome of this)

Finally, the Islamic Regime's hatred of Israel is purely political, as a result of Israel's position during the October Surprise and the Iran/Contra Affair. (Compliments of Reagan/Bush).




Now let's just say for argument's sake, Iran did get a nuclear weapon... Having a nuclear weapon and NOT using it is much, much more impactful than actually using it. Using a nuclear weapon would instantly make you a target to be taken out by the ENTIRE WORLD and could leave to fallout. To actually have a nuclear weapon, means having a voice on the international platform - something the USA and England have both been trying to control in Iran since 1953. For Iran to gain international power means the wealthier nations would have to engage in discourse and negotiations with their "enemies" - and why do that when you control the majority of the planet's resources/wealth?


The existence of this thread is flat out ridiculous. We have an Iran thread in the politics forum already and all this thread does is further fearmongering propaganda.




TL;DR - Iran's government = bad, Iran's people = good. The argument that Iran would get a nuclear weapon is "slippery slope" fallacy to begin with, so to say they'd actually use it is further "slippery slope" speculation on top of speculation.

I'd respond to this, but what's the point. I mean you think a Dumbledore gif is an appropriate arguing tool Take Thundercrack's advice and learn to debate without bringing your emotions into it, it makes you seem like a child.

I'm assuming if we say Israel's government = bad, Israeli people = good we'll run into a bit of a double standard

 

[PacificBoy]

What Thundercrack85 said may be slightly flippant but it's on point. Israel's second-strike capability is a firmer deterrent against any Iranian nuclear offensive.

 

[Thundercrack85]

To me there seems to be a conflation of Iran wanting to have a bomb and wanting to use it (on Israel).

I think the latter is unlikely. But the former, quite plausible. And who can blame them? If I was the Ayatollah I would want one too. Once you have nuclear weapons you can get away with anything short of using them. Just ask Russia, or you know, America.

Iran's main priority is winning its proxy wars in the Middle East. Nuclear weapons mainly serve to deter the US and Israel, and in the long term, Saudi Arabia.

 

[DeadPresident]

To me there seems to be a conflation of Iran wanting to have a bomb and wanting to use it (on Israel).

I think the latter is unlikely. But the former, quite plausible. And who can blame them? If I was the Ayatollah I would want one too. Once you have nuclear weapons you can get away with anything short of using them. Just ask Russia, or you know, America.

Iran's main priority is winning its proxy wars in the Middle East. Nuclear weapons mainly serve to deter the US and Israel, and in the long term, Saudi Arabia.

Do you mean in terms of their own population? Just asking because of the Russian comparison.

 

[summerteeth]

What Thundercrack85 said may be slightly flippant but it's on point. Israel's second-strike capability is a firmer deterrent against any Iranian nuclear offensive.

Assuming that Iran is rational and assuming that they aren't filled with religious zealots. Again, they have proven to be irrational in their attempt to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador on US soil. So, I think we should do everything in our power to stop them from getting nuclear weapons. Under different leadership it might be different.

 

[hippie_hunter]

While they have displayed degrees of irrationality, they haven't displayed the irrationality necessary to be suicidal to themselves. They're just like North Korea, a rogue state that does irrational things to stay in power.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Do you mean in terms of their own population? Just asking because of the Russian comparison.

Well, Iran is a totalitarian state already. I mean, really short of genocide, the international community generally turns a blind eye to whatever countries do in their own backyard. Or even genocide in the case of Iraq.

 

[Tech]

I find Prime Minister Netanyahu speaking in front of US Congress really disturbing. Would anyone defend it if it was Saudi Arabian king?

Seeing articles written stating that Senator Rand Paul wasn't clapping passionately enough really frightens me.

According to this article, the deal which involves France and Britain and China consist of lifting sanctions in favor of Iran showing that nuclear program is for economic purposes.

I understand Iran has incentive to want to create nuclear weapon and it is a risk..but trying to consistently cripple the country economically and isolate Iran from the world seems more dangerous and likely to lead to more fringe marginalization seen in pre-Nazi Germany after World War I.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/07/us-iran-nuclear-france-usa-idUSKBN0M30IP20150307

 

[summerteeth]

While they have displayed degrees of irrationality, they haven't displayed the irrationality necessary to be suicidal to themselves. They're just like North Korea, a rogue state that does irrational things to stay in power.

I don't see how that wouldn't have been suicidal for the regime. If it hadn't been stopped it surely would have triggered a war against Iran and that's why I question their rationality. It was an absolutely crazy move.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Political assassinations are not unusual though. Stalin tried to kill Tito so may times it got kind of ridiculous. North Korea's tried to kill the South Korean president several times, and actually blew up the Minister of Foreign Affairs and several South Korean cabinet members in Rangoon in 1983.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I find Prime Minister Netanyahu speaking in front of US Congress really disturbing. Would anyone defend it if it was Saudi Arabian king?

Seeing articles written stating that Senator Rand Paul wasn't clapping passionately enough really frightens me.

According to this article, the deal which involves France and Britain and China consist of lifting sanctions in favor of Iran showing that nuclear program is for economic purposes.

I understand Iran has incentive to want to create nuclear weapon and it is a risk..but trying to consistently cripple the country economically and isolate Iran from the world seems more dangerous and likely to lead to more fringe marginalization seen in pre-Nazi Germany after World War I.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/07/us-iran-nuclear-france-usa-idUSKBN0M30IP20150307

This isn't Weimar Germany though. Iran is already a totalitarian theocracy.

Plus, the West's demands aren't really all that crazy. Stop enriching uranium, period.

 

[summerteeth]

Political assassinations are not unusual though. Stalin tried to kill Tito so may times it got kind of ridiculous. North Korea's tried to kill the South Korean president several times, and actually blew up the Minister of Foreign Affairs and several South Korean cabinet members in Rangoon in 1983.

It wasn't just an assassination though, it would have been a terrorist attack on US soil that killed innocent Americans. Do you honestly feel that wouldn't have triggered a war?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Somewhat yes. But it's hard to say for sure.

I'm not saying we should let Iran get a bomb for the record. But I'm not convinced they're going to bomb Israel the next day.

 

[summerteeth]

Somewhat yes. But it's hard to say for sure.

I'm not saying we should let Iran get a bomb for the record. But I'm not convinced they're going to bomb Israel the next day.

Neither do I, but I also think that they would not hesitate to use it if they were "provoked" which is a line easily crossed when it comes to Iran.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I don't see how that wouldn't have been suicidal for the regime. If it hadn't been stopped it surely would have triggered a war against Iran and that's why I question their rationality. It was an absolutely crazy move.

Like I said, they will do some things that appear irrational, but they're not going to outright cross the line that will assure their destruction. It's the same thing as North Korea. They will walk a fine tight rope, but they're not going to allow the rope to be cut and they will ensure that they stay on it.

 

[summerteeth]

Like I said, they will do some things that appear irrational, but they're not going to outright cross the line that will assure their destruction. It's the same thing as North Korea. They will walk a fine tight rope, but they're not going to allow the rope to be cut and they will ensure that they stay on it.

How would that not have led to their destruction?

Plus, if that's the type of stuff they would try to pull without nuclear weapons, what will they do once they have nuclear weapons? They tried to launch a terror attack on US soil.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, there's blowing people up, and then there's nuclear war. It's a fine line, but it is a line.

Plus the latter would directly affect the Ayatollah and Iran's leaders directly. It's one thing to order your peons to kill people across the globe, another when you risk having your entire country – including you – wiped off the face of the Earth in a nuclear exchange.

 

[summerteeth]

Well, there's blowing people up, and then there's nuclear war. It's a fine line, but it is a line.

Plus the latter would directly affect the Ayatollah and Iran's leaders directly. It's one thing to order your peons to kill people across the globe, another when you risk having your entire country – including you – wiped off the face of the Earth in a nuclear exchange.

He would have been directly affected if that attack went through. It's not just the risk of nuclear attack (which could be a possibility), it's what does Iran do if they are a nuclear power. They will become emboldened and push the limits at the very least, I don't think there is any doubt about that.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I don't disagree.

For the record, I think Netanyahu should back off and let the talks happen. If Iran back downs, then good. If not, he can still always bomb them next week.

He's been saying Iran is on the verge of having a nuclear bomb since the 90's. It's been 20 years. Even Mossad is saying that they're not ready. I think we can wait a few more months to let these talks pan out.

 

[DeadPresident]

Well, Iran is a totalitarian state already. I mean, really short of genocide, the international community generally turns a blind eye to whatever countries do in their own backyard. Or even genocide in the case of Iraq.

I figured. I agree with the sentiment that the international community doesn't really care what a leader does to his own citizens but only sits up and pays attention when it spills over borders. Iran getting nukes would emphasize that even more, it makes it even more likely that if there's some Assad-like episode there that them having nukes would just amplify the disregard they'd show any international laws protecting their citizens.

 

[summerteeth]

I don't disagree.

For the record, I think Netanyahu should back off and let the talks happen. If Iran back downs, then good. If not, he can still always bomb them next week.

He's been saying Iran is on the verge of having a nuclear bomb since the 90's. It's been 20 years. Even Mossad is saying that they're not ready. I think we can wait a few more months to let these talks pan out.

I don't have a problem with talks, but unless Iran gives up on this program I see no reason to stop the sanctions.