Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* - - - - 3 votes

The Problem of an Iranian Nuke


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

Poll: The Problem of an Iranian Nuke (23 member(s) have cast votes)

Is Iran preparing themselves to build nuclear weapons at a time TBD?

  1. yes (10 votes [43.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 43.48%

  2. no (7 votes [30.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.43%

  3. possibly (6 votes [26.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.09%

Will an Iranian nuke cause more or less stability in the M.E.?

  1. more (14 votes [60.87%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.87%

  2. less (9 votes [39.13%])

    Percentage of vote: 39.13%

Would an Iranian nuke threaten more than just Israel?

  1. yes (12 votes [52.17%])

    Percentage of vote: 52.17%

  2. no (11 votes [47.83%])

    Percentage of vote: 47.83%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 17,760 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies for the hardest victory is over SELF.
    Aristotle

Posted 13 October 2013 - 08:01 PM

This thread is not about Israel per se.  It is about the real possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon program and the effect it would have on the M.E. and the wider world.  If you fully believe there is no program nor ever will be then please ignore this thread.  Arguments are not welcome - discourse on hypotheticals is welcomed.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#2    XingWi

XingWi

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Joined:29 May 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 October 2013 - 10:38 PM

"How would you handle an imminent threat to those YOU love?"

Nice approach to fear-mongering. So everyone must first accept this hypothetical "imminent threat" and then carry their discourse from there? Why not just write a fictional apocalyptical story about the end of the world at the hands of Iranians and post it in the Writer's and Artist's Section? You will get zero arguments and 100% freedom for hypotheticals.

Lithium/Minerals from Afghanistan, Oil from Iraq,libya are not enough for Americans and now they have their eyes on Iran. One more country to invade on WMD pretext. Nice.


#3    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 6,993 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 13 October 2013 - 11:47 PM

Iran will not be allowed to overtly produce even one nuclear warhead •    If they manage to do so in secret , what could be done?  If they announced that accomplishment they would surely know that there would be severe consequences?     but,  to use one?   fogetaboudit!     I doubt they are that anxious to get a substantial part of the population to paradise?

Any country producing a nuclear weapon is a problem.   May i ask,   (because i don't know , but don't think so)   are there any countries currently,openly, beginning a nuclear program?  

  IMO  it's far past time to get rid of all nukes.  We have efficient enough alternatives to kill each other.

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#4    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 17,760 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies for the hardest victory is over SELF.
    Aristotle

Posted 14 October 2013 - 06:25 AM

View PostXingWi, on 13 October 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

"How would you handle an imminent threat to those YOU love?"

View Postlightly, on 13 October 2013 - 11:47 PM, said:



Iran will not be allowed to overtly produce even one nuclear warhead • If they manage to do so in secret , what could be done?  If they announced that accomplishment they would surely know that there would be severe consequences? but,  to use one?   fogetaboudit! I doubt they are that anxious to get a substantial part of the population to paradise?

Any country producing a nuclear weapon is a problem.   May i ask,   (because i don't know , but don't think so)   are there any countries currently,openly, beginning a nuclear program?  

  IMO  it's far past time to get rid of all nukes.  We have efficient enough alternatives to kill each other.
To my knowledge there are no overt nuclear weapons programs ongoing.  I agree they should be dismantled but I also wish for a cure for cancer and expect about the same timeline for each each event.  Not to be argumentative - just that no weapon that gives such advantage between nations has ever been unilaterally discarded.  The couple of countries that have set them aside have done so because they really had no real advantage to begin with AND they were rational enough to see the benefit of doing so.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#5    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 17,760 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies for the hardest victory is over SELF.
    Aristotle

Posted 14 October 2013 - 06:26 AM

View PostXingWi, on 13 October 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

"How would you handle an imminent threat to those YOU love?"

Nice approach to fear-mongering. So everyone must first accept this hypothetical "imminent threat" and then carry their discourse from there? Why not just write a fictional apocalyptical story about the end of the world at the hands of Iranians and post it in the Writer's and Artist's Section? You will get zero arguments and 100% freedom for hypotheticals.

Lithium/Minerals from Afghanistan, Oil from Iraq,libya are not enough for Americans and now they have their eyes on Iran. One more country to invade on WMD pretext. Nice.
This thread presupposes an Iranian nuclear weapons program and I repeat - if anyone believes such a program to be an impossibility then this thread should hold no interest for them.  Please do not derail it.  There are legitimate considerations about this issue that threaten world peace and it is valuable to consider them - not dismiss them so casually.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#6    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,215 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 October 2013 - 06:30 AM

View Postand then, on 13 October 2013 - 08:01 PM, said:

This thread is not about Israel per se.  It is about the real possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon program and the effect it would have on the M.E. and the wider world.  If you fully believe there is no program nor ever will be then please ignore this thread.  Arguments are not welcome - discourse on hypotheticals is welcomed.
Hypothetically it's extremely difficult to hide the evidence.  Evidence of a weapons program is evidence.  We can accept it at face value.  

Meanwhile Iran is complying with the law.  

Don't like the treaties that bind us?   Then let us re-write or amend the ones we've got.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#7    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 17,760 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies for the hardest victory is over SELF.
    Aristotle

Posted 14 October 2013 - 07:01 AM

View PostYamato, on 14 October 2013 - 06:30 AM, said:

Hypothetically it's extremely difficult to hide the evidence.  Evidence of a weapons program is evidence.  We can accept it at face value.  

Meanwhile Iran is complying with the law.  

Don't like the treaties that bind us?   Then let us re-write or amend the ones we've got.
I guess it comes down to what is accepted as "evidence".  There is no real dispute that they are installing large numbers of new centrifuges and they have built secure deep underground facilities to house them.  For a truly peaceful civilian program such steps are very expensive and unnecessary.  The total numbers of centrifuges are the key.  Weapons breakout depends almost entirely on the capability to produce the fissile fuel.  I have heard that an agreement is soon to be announced that will basically allow Iran to keep their centrifuges and their capacity to enrich to 5% while removing all their stocks of 20% and closing Fordow.  All in exchange for lifting of sanctions.  Sounds very fair.  If I and others of the same mind are correct however, the thousands of centrifuges that we KNOW of will remain in place and spinning and a conversion back to 20% or even 95% purity is only a decision away - days - while re establishing the sanctions could take months or even years.  I actually believe an Iranian bomb is a fait accompli.  My curiosity is whether Israel will truly stand alone in the final analysis or if they will simply accept the bomb and begin to plan for a destabilizing of the mullocracy.  
An Iranian bomb would make them untouchable.  If their proxies decide to attack Israel or terrorize the Kingdom - trying to install a Shia leadership there - the world would be paralyzed to defend against it.  If the "fat sissies" as Don Imus calls them, decided to build their own bombs, then what?  Or perhaps the rumors are true and they already have purchased a small arsenal from Pakistan.  The region becomes a powder keg sitting next to a bonfire.

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...
“This is like playing poker with a guy who cheated you twice before. You know who does that, a moron.

#8    Almagest

Almagest

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 838 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2013

Posted 14 October 2013 - 07:27 AM

I certainly wouldn't be a warmonger against a country that's no real threat to me. Remember Pakistan has nukes, and Islamic fundamentalists, and an incredibly unstable government, and a feud that's been bordering on a nuclear exchange for forty years. Where are all your threads about them, AT?

Heaven and hell suppose two distinct species of men, the good and the bad. But the greatest part of mankind float betwixt vice and virtue. - David Hume

#9    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 14 October 2013 - 07:44 AM

View PostAlmagest, on 14 October 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

I certainly wouldn't be a warmonger against a country that's no real threat to me. Remember Pakistan has nukes, and Islamic fundamentalists, and an incredibly unstable government, and a feud that's been bordering on a nuclear exchange for forty years. Where are all your threads about them, AT?
What I understand about Pakistan is that although they tested a few, they aren't building them and aren't issuing threats to use them.

Regardless, the more countries have nuclear weapons the greater danger to all of us.


#10    XingWi

XingWi

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Joined:29 May 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 October 2013 - 08:02 AM

View Postand then, on 14 October 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

This thread presupposes an Iranian nuclear weapons program and I repeat - if anyone believes such a program to be an impossibility then this thread should hold no interest for them.  Please do not derail it.  There are legitimate considerations about this issue that threaten world peace and it is valuable to consider them - not dismiss them so casually.


Your polls are extremely biased and impossible to vote at by everyone. I wonder how people even managed to vote. You are either completely unaware of legitimate statistical research procedures or are deliberatey messing aound with people. Your thread cannot be derailed because it is fundamentally skewed from the start. You want participants to presuppose an Iranian nuclear weapons program and not to argue against it yet you are free to argue about what evidence suggests they are making WMDs?!

What you are doing here by asking people to vote at the polls and to participate in this discussion involves a lot of logical flaws - biased and erroneous. Read these:

http://en.wikipedia....i/Biased_sample

http://en.wikipedia..../Self-selection


And this too:

http://en.wikipedia..../Appeal_to_fear


Lets see how you pick answers from the below questions that are in the same pattern as in the OP (The objective is to demonstrate the bias and errors in the OP and not to insult anyone):


1. Is Mr. and then involved in violent crimes like all other Christian Zionists?

A. yes

B. no

C. possibly


2. Will Mr. and then's nonsensical extremist ideology and mindless parroting of western war-mongering propaganda cause more or less harm to his credibility in these forums?

A.  more

B.  less



3. Will Mr. and then's lust for Muslim blood end with the destruction of Muslim countries alone?

A. yes

B. no

Edited by XingWi, 14 October 2013 - 08:04 AM.


#11    XingWi

XingWi

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 329 posts
  • Joined:29 May 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 October 2013 - 08:11 AM

View Postand then, on 14 October 2013 - 07:01 AM, said:

I guess it comes down to what is accepted as "evidence".  There is no real dispute that they are installing large numbers of new centrifuges and they have built secure deep underground facilities to house them.  For a truly peaceful civilian program such steps are very expensive and unnecessary.  The total numbers of centrifuges are the key.  Weapons breakout depends almost entirely on the capability to produce the fissile fuel.  I have heard that an agreement is soon to be announced that will basically allow Iran to keep their centrifuges and their capacity to enrich to 5% while removing all their stocks of 20% and closing Fordow.  All in exchange for lifting of sanctions.  Sounds very fair.  If I and others of the same mind are correct however, the thousands of centrifuges that we KNOW of will remain in place and spinning and a conversion back to 20% or even 95% purity is only a decision away - days - while re establishing the sanctions could take months or even years.  I actually believe an Iranian bomb is a fait accompli.  My curiosity is whether Israel will truly stand alone in the final analysis or if they will simply accept the bomb and begin to plan for a destabilizing of the mullocracy.  
An Iranian bomb would make them untouchable.  If their proxies decide to attack Israel or terrorize the Kingdom - trying to install a Shia leadership there - the world would be paralyzed to defend against it.  If the "fat sissies" as Don Imus calls them, decided to build their own bombs, then what?  Or perhaps the rumors are true and they already have purchased a small arsenal from Pakistan.  The region becomes a powder keg sitting next to a bonfire.

Well, they had the "evidence" of WMD before the invasion Iraq too. Where is that "evidence" now?


#12    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 14 October 2013 - 08:14 AM

If the Iranians actually try to use atomic weapons to blackmail the Sunni world, or the Israelis, they will face utter destruction.  I would hope in their blindness they can see this but it doesn't seem so.


#13    Almagest

Almagest

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 838 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2013

Posted 14 October 2013 - 08:18 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 14 October 2013 - 07:44 AM, said:

What I understand about Pakistan is that although they tested a few, they aren't building them and aren't issuing threats to use them.

Regardless, the more countries have nuclear weapons the greater danger to all of us.

They've got their own MAD situation going on with India at the moment, and while they may not be building any or threatening to use them, there's still an estimated hundred or so warheads in the country. I think the question still stands; why is the imaginary nuke of Iran so much more threatening than the one hundred real nukes of Pakistan?

Heaven and hell suppose two distinct species of men, the good and the bad. But the greatest part of mankind float betwixt vice and virtue. - David Hume

#14    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 17,137 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Posted 14 October 2013 - 08:21 AM

I would say it isn't more threatening, just an additional threat the world doesn't need.


#15    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,215 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 14 October 2013 - 08:29 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 14 October 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

If the Iranians actually try to use atomic weapons to blackmail the Sunni world, or the Israelis, they will face utter destruction.  I would hope in their blindness they can see this but it doesn't seem so.
It does seem so.   The US should be friends with Iran.  This interventionist policy we've administered since 1953 is getting old.

"If they actually try to use atomic weapons."  There is NO EVIDENCE that they "would try" this bogus Zionist conjecture.   Let's suppose we get invaded by space aliens or hit by a large meteor.   Let's suppose there will be another natural disaster somewhere and run balanced budgets so that we'll actually be able to afford to help whoever the victim of the disaster is.  

off topic Does Vietnam balance its budget?

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users