What if Iran gets nuclear weapons?

[herakles]

The citizens of Iran do not have much of a say. For openers women have little say. That's half the population.

The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini saying that gender equality was "one of the biggest mistakes of Western thought.

Iran has executed 1,000 of political prisoners. Speak up, and you are at risk.

A sample of their law.

Theft (sirqhat-e-haddi): 1st offense, amputation of the 4 right fingers; 2nd offense, amputation of the 5 left toes; 3rd offense, life imprisonment; 4th offense, death penalty. There are numerous mitigating factors, such as poverty, repentance, failure, if it was public property, if it was not in a secure place inside of a house/store, and such. As a general rule, Iranian judicial authorities do not carry out amputation.

Apostasy (irtaad): officially not a crime in Iran, but still punished because it is inspired by religious texts in serious cases. Death penalty for men, life imprisonment for women. (If person had converted and then became apostate, three days are given to repent, otherwise execution carried out).

Blasphemy (sabb-al-nabi): death penalty or imprisonment[citation needed]
Adultery (zina): Unmarried(fornication), 100 lashes, death penalty for married couples. Mitigating Factor: repentance, lack of evidence, marrying partner, temporary marriage in some cases.

Married: death penalty (probably hanging) Mitigating Factor: repentance, lack of evidence, forgiveness by spouse, (in practice if partner did not die, no death penalty given) It would normally would be reduced to 99 lashes discretionary punishment

Rape: death penalty for rapist (4 witnesses not needed in most cases) Mitigating factor: repentance, forgiveness of victim, paying compensation "jirah" to victim, lack of evidence

Sodomy (lavat): Rape, death penalty for rapist; Consensual; 100 lashes for active partner, death penalty for passive partner unless repentant (prior to 2012, it was death penalty for both). Mitigating Factor: repentance, lack of evidence, (see adultery's mitigating factors)

Takhfiz (non-penetrative homosexuality): 100 lashes; 4th offense, death penalty. Mitigating Factor: repentance, lack of evidence[citation needed]
Lesbianism (mosahegheh): 100 lashes; death on 4th offense Mitigating factors: repentance, lack of evidence

Procuring of prostitute (ghavvadi): 100 lashes; 4th offense, death penalty. If widespread prostitution rings were run, person could be sentenced to death as a "corrupter of the earth". Mitigating factor: repentance, lack of evidence

False Accusation of Sexual Crimes (ghazf): 80 lashes; 4th offense, death penalty. Mitigating factors: forgiveness of the falsely accused person.

Consumption of alcohol (shurb-e-khamr): 80 lashes; 4th offense death penalty (prior to 2008, 3rd offense) This also applies to drug users. Mitigating Factors: repentance, lack of evidence, promising to receive treatment for addiction


The nation is run by religious people who have no qualms about using their holy book to justify terrorism. No way should these guys be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. There is only downside if they get them...

Guess what nation is going to be taken off our list of terrorist nations...

 

[herakles]

Please elaborate.


The Iranian constitution and code of laws has been mish-mashed for the last 1000 years. Judges and officials make decisions based on opinion and there's no basis for legal precedence in Iran. It's essentially a country where a bunch of self-obsessed bullies got power and only share the power with other self obsessed bullies.

Sometimes they follow the punishments, sometimes they let things go, sometimes it's much worse. Now that said, you can't use the Slippery Slope fallacy to argue a point in favour of a hypothetical situation that hasn't happened.

1. Iran said they are not developing nuclear weapons
2. Even if they did, you can't assume they're going to use them because they commit acts of terror against their own people

Might I remind you of the acts of terrorism committed by virtually every country in possession of nuclear arms? They are all constantly breaking the rules set by the Geneva Convention.

So let's not pretend that you not wanting Iran to pursue nuclear power is about "Social Justice", because if it was, you'd be advocating that every country with nuclear powers disarm themselves. And as per Iran specifically, you'd be calling for them to fix their current issues rather than stopping progress in fear of future issues that may or may not happen.

YOu are either naïve or you want Iran to have the bomb!??

 

[SV Fan]

Guess what nation is going to be taken off our list of terrorist nations...

Saudi Arabia? Oh wait they already aren't on it

 

[herakles]

Saudi Arabia? Oh wait they already aren't on it

Iran.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

YOu are either naïve or you want Iran to have the bomb!??

Or neither. I'm beng logical. Even IF Iran got the bomb, they wouldn't use it and it would foolish to assume otherwise.

 

[SV Fan]

Iran.

I was just looking at the list of crimes and Saudi Arabia instantly came to mind, which makes one question why aren't they on our terrorist list since it seems like a good number of terrorists and funding comes from there.

Or neither. I'm beng logical. Even IF Iran got the bomb, they wouldn't use it and it would foolish to assume otherwise.

I think the problem is we live in a world where people using fear tactics works, so people who have an agenda like the Neocons will just paint this zombie apocalypse scenario will happen if we don't do something and people actually believe they aren't lying.

 

[herakles]

I was just looking at the list of crimes and Saudi Arabia instantly came to mind, which makes one question why aren't they on our terrorist list since it seems like a good number of terrorists and funding comes from there.

I totally agree with you!! Saudis and Chinese are our worst allies! I wish we would break the oil companies backs and start using electric cars for everything outside of military vehicles while sending all our manufacturing to Mexico!

 

[Taarna]

Or neither. I'm beng logical. Even IF Iran got the bomb, they wouldn't use it and it would foolish to assume otherwise.

Are you comfortable with a nation sponsoring terrorism and large nation that is ruled by Religious types having nuclear weapons?

Its a bad combination. Iran or some rouge group they sponsor could very well use them. Then you have W.W. III

Even if Iran did not use them it would create an Arms race in the Middle East.

Obama's administration a welcome fool for Iran's goals. They will get Nukes.
Making nice to Islam does not work.

I'm not here to judge. But I will inform. There are over 100 references of hate in its good book. " Do not befriend Jew or Christian " That is a mild one. As long as Iran is ruled by Religious types who quote the book and threaten to wipe another nation off the map in the name of their god, things will be unsafe for many.


http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html

 

[Destructus86]

Are you comfortable with a nation sponsoring terrorism and large nation that is ruled by Religious types having nuclear weapons?

Its a bad combination. Iran or some rouge group they sponsor could very well use them. Then you have W.W. III

Even if Iran did not use them it would create an Arms race in the Middle East.

Obama's administration a welcome fool for Iran's goals. They will get Nukes.
Making nice to Islam does not work.

I'm not here to judge. But I will inform. There are over 100 references of hate in its good book. " Do not befriend Jew or Christian " That is a mild one. As long as Iran is ruled by Religious types who quote the book and threaten to wipe another nation off the map in the name of their god, things will be unsafe for many.


http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html

Oh I agree. We shouldn't be partnering with a country run by a religious group. As much as I detest their treatment of women as well...our country wants connections in that part of the world and Iran is a lesser of evils.
The US will never leave that part of the world sadly...so we'll just have to deal with it. Doesn't mean we personally have to condone it.

 

[herakles]

Oh I agree. We shouldn't be partnering with a country run by a religious group. As much as I detest their treatment of women as well...our country wants connections in that part of the world and Iran is a lesser of evils.
The US will never leave that part of the world sadly...so we'll just have to deal with it. Doesn't mean we personally have to condone it.

Iran is NOT the lesser of the evil in the Middle East! That would be Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Iraqi government and the Kurds! Iran spencer's terrorism in Syria, Lebanon and Gaza!

 

[Thundercrack85]

America is already Israel's sugar daddy. Relations with Jordan are fine. Egypt is a tinderbox though.

America is allies with Saudi Arabia which is as bad, if not worse than Iran.

 

[Taarna]

America is already Israel's sugar daddy. Relations with Jordan are fine. Egypt is a tinderbox though.

America is allies with Saudi Arabia which is as bad, if not worse than Iran.

Israel is the lone democracy in the middle east and ally to the USA.

I'm not a fan of Saudi Arabia, but there is a business relationship for oil. If things get wild in the Middle East the Saudi's allow the USA to base troops there. The partnership has value.

Who has Saudi Arabia threatened? When was the last time they threatened another nation?

In terms of dangerous nations to the USA in the Middle East I think Saudi Arabia is well below Iran, Syria, or the UAE.

The UAE was one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Are you comfortable with a nation sponsoring terrorism

Oooooh the irony is oozing out of this question.

and large nation that is ruled by Religious types having nuclear weapons?

Of course I'm not. But said Religious leaders don't want nuclear weapons and neither does their own population. So what's your point?

Its a bad combination. Iran or some rouge group they sponsor could very well use them. Then you have W.W. III

You would make a terrible lawyer. You just said "if A happens, B COULD happen. If B happens, then we have the worst possible case". You're using two layers of Slippery Slope fallacy.

Even if Iran did not use them it would create an Arms race in the Middle East.

More slippery slope - why would it create an arms race in the Middle East? USA having nukes didn't spark an arms race in North America/Central America, and neither did Israel having nukes in the Middle East. Why now? And even if Israel and USA had sparked local arms races, causation still does not equal correlation.

Obama's administration a welcome fool for Iran's goals. They will get Nukes.

You're right. You're clearly much more educated and have have loftier goals than the President of your country, commander and chief, a graduate of Harvard Law, the leader of a government that dug it's way out of a crazy recession, ended a seemingly unending war, is attempting peaceful negotiations over war (after trillions of dollars of deficit caused by a decade of war). Clearly Obama is the fool.

Making nice to Islam does not work.

This is either extremely hateful/prejudiced or ignorant. The government of Iran is in NO WAY a representation of Islam; especially when the VAST majority of their own people oppose their government (a population that is, for the most part, also Muslim).

I'm not here to judge. But I will inform. There are over 100 references of hate in its good book. " Do not befriend Jew or Christian "

Why are you making this out to be a war on Islam? You're also posting **** way out of context, especially when Muslims hold Moses and Jesus in VERY high esteem. In addition to this, Jews and Christians have full citizenship rights in Iran same as Muslims. The contention between Israel and Iran is not a religious one, it's as a result of the Iran/Contra affair and the October Surprise.

Furthermore, if you were to take a religious angle at this, look at the persecution of the Baha'is in Iran. They have no citizenship rights, are barred from education, their homes are raided, they're not allowed to work or leave the country and can be imprisoned and executed on a whim - this is all within the legal system of Iran. As a member of the Baha'i Faith and an individual who has felt the effects of this religious persecution, even I can CLEARLY see that the root of these actions is hatred from a small group of individuals, not a religion.

That is a mild one. As long as Iran is ruled by Religious types who quote the book and threaten to wipe another nation off the map in the name of their god, things will be unsafe for many.

The leaders of Iran are using the book to justify their actions, and for the most part they don't even stay true to the Qur'an - they quote the likes of Khomeini and other Ayatollahs. Everyone in Iran (including the Baha'is who are killed on the pretence of religion) can see that it's not a religious issue, why can't you?

Israel is the lone democracy in the middle east and ally to the USA.

First off that's out false. Iran is a pseudo-democracy, Pakistan has a democracy, as does Iraq. Egypt and Turkey have pseudo-democracy/borderline Coup d'Etats.

Also, the whole push for "democracy" is not an indicator of being civilised and it has a lot of historical context that needs to be kept in mind. Consider that Iran almost had a democracy multiple times (four by my count), and each time it was thwarted by OUTSIDE INFLUENCE - nations that largely support democracy.

Why? Because the issue with democracy is that it only works until you have a group of individuals benefitting from it.

Spoiler

Once power settles in, democracy is gone. Bi-partisan politics is not TRUE democracy. Corporate interest and campaign funding is not TRUE democracy. Once you understand that, you'll see how America's democracy was prostituted to banks, oil companies and media conglomerates - all of which have international interests that push to thwart new-age democracies.

I'm not a fan of Saudi Arabia, but there is a business relationship for oil. If things get wild in the Middle East the Saudi's allow the USA to base troops there. The partnership has value.

Exhibit A on how Capitalism thwarts true Democracy.

Who has Saudi Arabia threatened? When was the last time they threatened another nation?

They've protected a number of members tied to the Taliban and Al Qaeda for years. When it comes to internal conflict, women are treated far worse in Saudi Arabia than many other countries. The wealth inequality there is also horrific. Also compare the general population's disdain for non-Arabs and non-Muslims and all of their local laws that reinforce this, to the Persian custom of Tarrof.

They've also been threatening Iran 1979. Remember the WikiLeaks? There were countless cables of Saudi Arabia pushing for the USA and many European countries to attack Iran. Remember the whole "business relationship for oil" you were talking about? That, married with Israel being pissed about the whole Iran-Contra Affair and October Surprise (thank you, Reagan) brings us to today. Suddenly your anti-Islam/anti-Iran/pre-emptive strike position lacks a lot of merit.

In terms of dangerous nations to the USA in the Middle East I think Saudi Arabia is well below Iran, Syria, or the UAE.

Saudi Arabia and Qatar are the most powerful nations in South-Western Asia. They don't have the firepower, but they have the money to sway more powerful bodies.


You see? This is why context is important.

 

[Cosmic]

I don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons. I don't want anyone to get nuclear weapons. I don't want anyone who already has them to ever use them. We should dispose of all of them.

But this all goes back to what I said before. We've been through this before, time and again, the warmongers and war profiteers find a way to fool the people into thinking they have to go fight and kill people who do not want war.

 

[Kelly]

Or neither. I'm beng logical. Even IF Iran got the bomb, they wouldn't use it and it would foolish to assume otherwise.

I don't think anyone can say for sure what Iran would do with nukes...
Hmmm....I think its pretty foolish to think that they wouldn't. They feel the need for a nuke because.......of Israel? If you are willing to take the chance that Iran would not use a nuclear weapon, then why can't they believe the same about Israel? I mean, if that's the logical way of thinking, then apparently they aren't thinking logically?

Oh I agree. We shouldn't be partnering with a country run by a religious group. As much as I detest their treatment of women as well...our country wants connections in that part of the world and Iran is a lesser of evils.
The US will never leave that part of the world sadly...so we'll just have to deal with it. Doesn't mean we personally have to condone it.

Jordan is the lesser of two evils, possibly even Egypt, though Obama doesn't seem to be to happy with them right now.

Are you comfortable with a nation sponsoring terrorism and large nation that is ruled by Religious types having nuclear weapons?

Its a bad combination. Iran or some rouge group they sponsor could very well use them. Then you have W.W. III

Even if Iran did not use them it would create an Arms race in the Middle East.

Obama's administration a welcome fool for Iran's goals. They will get Nukes.
Making nice to Islam does not work.

I'm not here to judge. But I will inform. There are over 100 references of hate in its good book. " Do not befriend Jew or Christian " That is a mild one. As long as Iran is ruled by Religious types who quote the book and threaten to wipe another nation off the map in the name of their god, things will be unsafe for many.

And yet you just did...We get along fairly well in here, mainly by sticking to the topic as much as possible and NOT mixing Religion and Politics. Please refrain from doing so....

 

[SV Fan]

I don't think anyone can say for sure what Iran would do with nukes...
Hmmm....I think its pretty foolish to think that they wouldn't. They feel the need for a nuke because.......of Israel? If you are willing to take the chance that Iran would not use a nuclear weapon, then why can't they believe the same about Israel? I mean, if that's the logical way of thinking, then apparently they aren't thinking logically?

Let's be honest, they are more likely to use it on Saudi Arabia then Israel.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, I think people should remember that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and it's really not that different from Iran. Arguably, it's a bit more dangerous, since it's constantly on the verge of war with India. Iran and Saudi Arabia hate each other, but they haven't engaged in multiple wars and arms races.

Iran having nuclear weapons is obviously undesirable, but it's not like the world will end.

My main concern is longterm nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

Israel's saber rattling isn't helping. Likud might as well be building Iran a bomb, because if I was in Tehran I would want the bomb.

 

[SV Fan]

Israel's saber rattling isn't helping. Likud might as well be building Iran a bomb, because if I was in Tehran I would want the bomb.

I have to agree with this, if I am Iran I call out Israel for being nuts and having nukes.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons. I don't want anyone to get nuclear weapons. I don't want anyone who already has them to ever use them. We should dispose of all of them.

But this all goes back to what I said before. We've been through this before, time and again, the warmongers and war profiteers find a way to fool the people into thinking they have to go fight and kill people who do not want war.

I don't think anyone can say for sure what Iran would do with nukes...
Hmmm....I think its pretty foolish to think that they wouldn't. They feel the need for a nuke because.......of Israel? If you are willing to take the chance that Iran would not use a nuclear weapon, then why can't they believe the same about Israel? I mean, if that's the logical way of thinking, then apparently they aren't thinking logically?

Well first and foremost, any bum on the street can tell you that launching a nuclear strike would result in a counterstrike. Make no mistake, the leaders of Iran are intelligent. Terrible, but intelligent. They wouldn't do something that would result in the annihilation of their people - not that they care about the people, but they care about the MONEY of their people. You can't really rule over a pile of dead bodies. The people of Iran are also just one bad day away from taking the country from the government (see 2009 elections).

So if not to use it, why? "because Israel?" Yes and no. Keep in mind, Iran has been pushed around by outside forces for the better half of the last millennium. Let's ignore the caliphates for a second, that's still about a century of Western strong-arming of their own local politics. They've had governments overthrown, officials assassinated, their enemies given safeguard, their resources strangled etc etc. That's a lot of reasons to have a deterrent haha. I'm totally against a nuclear armed Iran (as well as nuclear weapons for any nation), but I can see the logic behind having one and not using it.

And yet you just did...We get along fairly well in here, mainly by sticking to the topic as much as possible and NOT mixing Religion and Politics. Please refrain from doing so....

Let's be honest, they are more likely to use it on Saudi Arabia then Israel.

This is true.

 

[Lilbaz]

Are you comfortable with a nation sponsoring terrorism and large nation that is ruled by Religious types having nuclear weapons?

Its a bad combination. Iran or some rouge group they sponsor could very well use them. Then you have W.W. III

Even if Iran did not use them it would create an Arms race in the Middle East.

Obama's administration a welcome fool for Iran's goals. They will get Nukes.
Making nice to Islam does not work.

I'm not here to judge. But I will inform. There are over 100 references of hate in its good book. " Do not befriend Jew or Christian " That is a mild one. As long as Iran is ruled by Religious types who quote the book and threaten to wipe another nation off the map in the name of their god, things will be unsafe for many.


http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html

When was the last time you read the bible?

 

[Lilbaz]

And yet you just did...We get along fairly well in here, mainly by sticking to the topic as much as possible and NOT mixing Religion and Politics. Please refrain from doing so....

Unfortunately many countries in the middle east are theocracy's. So separating politics and religion is very difficult.

We must remember though that most of the people living in those countries are just the same as you and me. With the same dreams/fears and ambitions.

 

[Cosmic]

I talked to young Iranians about nuclear negotiations and the future.

-Article from www.vice.com

 

[Thundercrack85]

Iran has two worlds. You have the fairly Westernized urban middle class, and then you have... well, the rest. Leave the cities and you'll find women being stoned to death for adultery. It might as well be Afghanistan.

Make no mistake though, that middle class is not in power.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Iran has two worlds. You have the fairly Westernized urban middle class, and then you have... well, the rest. Leave the cities and you'll find women being stoned to death for adultery. It might as well be Afghanistan.

Make no mistake though, that middle class is not in power.

To be honest, outside of urban areas it becomes VERY contrasted. You get areas that essentially govern themselves where men and women are treated equally, Bahai's are not only treated as the same as others, but PROTECTED, no one wears hijabs, people are constantly helping one another and are very forward thinking and artistic, then you get some areas where people are doing the stoning as you mentioned. The areas where stoning does happen are vastly outnumbered by the more "just" communities (when talking about rural areas). But yes, the crazy hicktowns do as few as they are in number (see "The Stoning of Soraya M")

Unfortunately, even the Middle Class is becoming the lower class. Economically speaking, people are suffocating. Members of parliament have reportedly talked about how the population needs to be kept starving so that they don't have the energy to revolt.

 

[Taarna]

Asteroid-Man


You would make a terrible lawyer. You just said "if A happens, B COULD happen. If B happens, then we have the worst possible case". You're using two layers of Slippery Slope fallacy.

Oh it would be an easy case for a law student. Iran sponsors terrorism, and there are 100's of attacks because of it. We know this. Are you naive enough to believe that those doing the attacks now would not use a WMD if they had access to them?

Case closed.

More slippery slope - why would it create an arms race in the Middle East? USA having nukes didn't spark an arms race in North America/Central America, and neither did Israel having nukes in the Middle East. Why now? And even if Israel and USA had sparked local arms races, causation still does not equal correlation.

Because the Nations in the middle east do not trust Iran.

This is either extremely hateful/prejudiced or ignorant. The government of Iran is in NO WAY a representation of Islam; especially when the VAST majority of their own people oppose their government (a population that is, for the most part, also Muslim).

Really, then why was there a revolution years back, and why is the head man a religious type? Let's not act like there are free elections in Iran. Let's not pretend the Ayatollah, which translates to high rank cleric doesn't run the country. Their leader unless he's overthrown MUST be a muslim cleric. No other minority group or sect will be in charge.

The leaders of Iran are using the book to justify their actions, and for the most part they don't even stay true to the Qur'an - they quote the likes of Khomeini and other Ayatollahs. Everyone in Iran (including the Baha'is who are killed on the pretence of religion) can see that it's not a religious issue, why can't you?

They clearly use hate religion in their politics. They clearly threaten other nations. You are either blind to the facts or very pro Iran / Muslim. Do you like their religious legal system based on secular and Islamic law? Do tell. Are you happy with Iran and how they burn our flags and took USA hostages? Show your colors, why not?

They've also been threatening Iran 1979. Remember the WikiLeaks? There were countless cables of Saudi Arabia pushing for the USA and many European countries to attack Iran. Remember the whole "business relationship for oil" you were talking about? That, married with Israel being pissed about the whole Iran-Contra Affair and October Surprise (thank you, Reagan) brings us to today. Suddenly your anti-Islam/anti-Iran/pre-emptive strike position lacks a lot of merit.

If you want to use Wiki in this conversation, its a quick way to show your points are mistaken and mine are correct. How about another topic on Iran?

Iran is a source, transit, and destination country for men, women, and children subjected to sex trafficking and forced labor; Iranian and Afghan boys and girls are forced into prostitution domestically; Iranian women are subjected to sex trafficking in Iran, Pakistan, the Persian Gulf, and Europe; Azerbaijani women and children are also sexually exploited in Iran; Afghan migrants and refugees and Pakistani men and women are subjected to conditions of forced labor in Iran; NGO reports indicate that criminal organizations play a significant role in human trafficking in Iran