+and-then Posted December 18, 2012 #1 Share Posted December 18, 2012 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324705104578151591225552574.html An interesting look at the potential costs of allowing Iran their bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuriousGreek Posted December 18, 2012 #2 Share Posted December 18, 2012 No country should have nuclear weapons, in my opinion, and i'm talking about the US of America and Israel as well. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted December 18, 2012 Author #3 Share Posted December 18, 2012 No country should have nuclear weapons, in my opinion, and i'm talking about the US of America and Israel as well. That boat sailed a very long time ago CG, but it's an understandable sentiment. The article is more about the realities - as seen by the business types - of what the bomb would do to relationships and trade in and around the region and the world. Short answer is that it makes things more unpredictable and therefore isn't welcome. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuriousGreek Posted December 18, 2012 #4 Share Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) That boat sailed a very long time ago CG, but it's an understandable sentiment. The article is more about the realities - as seen by the business types - of what the bomb would do to relationships and trade in and around the region and the world. Short answer is that it makes things more unpredictable and therefore isn't welcome. Good relationships between countries do not exist. So, what's the big deal? As for the trading, it doesn't surprise me. I know, that they all want to make profit!! Edited December 18, 2012 by CuriousGreek 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpandMyMind Posted December 18, 2012 #5 Share Posted December 18, 2012 (edited) No country should have nuclear weapons, in my opinion, and i'm talking about the US of America and Israel as well. It's easy enough to say this, and anyone with a good sense of morality would no doubt have to agree, at least in theory. But the reality, is that without U.S./Russian MAD, the world would have no doubt descended into a third World War a long time ago. Sort of ironic the the most destructive man-made invention also happens to be the one invention that has saved, potentially, more lives than can be properly comprehended. Edited December 18, 2012 by ExpandMyMind 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.AKUMA. Posted December 18, 2012 #6 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Sort of ironic the the most destructive man-made invention also happens to be the one invention that has saved, potentially, more lives than can be properly comprehended. Spot on!! And in.my opinion this is the very reason iran may be looking to develop nuclear weapons, to safeguard themselves. Iran has been on a global hitlist for sometime now having nuclear weapons would be the perfect deterance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted December 18, 2012 Author #7 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Spot on!! And in.my opinion this is the very reason iran may be looking to develop nuclear weapons, to safeguard themselves. Iran has been on a global hitlist for sometime now having nuclear weapons would be the perfect deterance. You kind of have the cart before the horse there. Were they not so aggressive in both rhetoric and action (terror attacks) they wouldn't need to be worried about action against them. But rest easy, I think they will have their bomb as soon as they decide to assemble it. I don't think they will wait beyond Obama's term of office. I think they still are trying for the time to both have the bomb AND have the world relax the sanctions. If they assemble it too soon then they have to continue indefinitely with sanctions and that is untenable for any country these days. I predict that Obama will accede to their production of nuclear fuel and the "crisis" - and sanctions - will be over...at least as long as he can cow Netanyahu. But the article here makes a reasonable case that a nuclear Iran won't be without real costs for everyone. And if the poor Iranian lambs decide to use their proxies in the region to attack their enemies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpandMyMind Posted December 18, 2012 #8 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Actually, A-T, it is you who is reversing cause and effect. This started way back when the CIA and MI5 installed the Sha. It is from there it escalated. And Israel has been calling for the destruction of Iran for decades. Hardly surprising that the rhetoric now is two way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.United_Nations Posted December 18, 2012 #9 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Good relationships between countries do not exist. So, what's the big deal? As for the trading, it doesn't surprise me. I know, that they all want to make profit!! cough*greececyprus*cough* 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.AKUMA. Posted December 18, 2012 #10 Share Posted December 18, 2012 You kind of have the cart before the horse there. Were they not so aggressive in both rhetoric and action (terror attacks) they wouldn't need to be worried about action against them. But rest easy, I think they will have their bomb as soon as they decide to assemble it. I don't think they will wait beyond Obama's term of office. I think they still are trying for the time to both have the bomb AND have the world relax the sanctions. If they assemble it too soon then they have to continue indefinitely with sanctions and that is untenable for any country these days. I predict that Obama will accede to their production of nuclear fuel and the "crisis" - and sanctions - will be over...at least as long as he can cow Netanyahu. But the article here makes a reasonable case that a nuclear Iran won't be without real costs for everyone. And if the poor Iranian lambs decide to use their proxies in the region to attack their enemies? I understand what your saying, but in your opinion do you think a nuclear iran would launch a strike on isreal? I very much doubt it! The iranian leadership isnt as crazy as the media portrays them to be. Having nuclear weapons seems to be the only way of safeguarding your security these days, especially with the US's track record latley iran proberbly assumes they were next on the list. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted December 18, 2012 Author #11 Share Posted December 18, 2012 I understand what your saying, but in your opinion do you think a nuclear iran would launch a strike on isreal? I very much doubt it! The iranian leadership isnt as crazy as the media portrays them to be. Having nuclear weapons seems to be the only way of safeguarding your security these days, especially with the US's track record latley iran proberbly assumes they were next on the list. No I don't. At least not a first strike out of the blue. I think the danger for the region is that once Iran has nukes it will become emboldened to push at Israel excessively - always searching for a way to bring the nation down. The greatest difference between myself and most others here is that I actually believe it when a country's leadership says they want Israel dead and gone. And I can be spared the semantic games. Anyone who truly believes after all the statements by leaders both civilian and military, that Iran does not want Israel gone is being less than honest. These two countries are blood enemies now. There was a time when the Shah was in power that Israel was allied with Iran. They became such enemies when a Shia dominated nut job theocracy took hold and swore a blood oath to kill them all. So yeah, Ex, I see your logic but it kind of all depends on what point you joined the story in progress. Back to the point - I have always said the danger from an Iranian nuke is that war will begin due to miscalculation - probably by one of Iran's proxies. They will take an action against Israel once too often or will be more successful in a body count than they even intended to be and Israel will come against them with more force than is deemed "appropriate" by Iran - things will just escalate from there. It's a perfectly plausible, even probable, scenario. Alternatively it could happen the old fashioned way.... Israel detects a missile launch on X-band that is unexplained and the trajectory shows it must be intermediate or long range ballistic - how long do they wait? The point is that proliferation is here. It isn't going anywhere but downhill and the world is incapable - or unwilling - to stand against it. When I see people here comment on the "fairness" of who can vs who cannot have nukes it makes me just shake my head at the naivete of people these days. If the world is shown the result of another one of these things being detonated ... and we survive it..maybe things can be turned around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuriousGreek Posted December 19, 2012 #12 Share Posted December 19, 2012 It's easy enough to say this, and anyone with a good sense of morality would no doubt have to agree, at least in theory. But the reality, is that without U.S./Russian MAD, the world would have no doubt descended into a third World War a long time ago. Sort of ironic the the most destructive man-made invention also happens to be the one invention that has saved, potentially, more lives than can be properly comprehended. You mean the Cold War prevented the world from having a third world war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuriousGreek Posted December 19, 2012 #13 Share Posted December 19, 2012 cough*greececyprus*cough* Cyprus is not a part of Greece, but Cypriots are Greeks. That's the only reason for the 2 states' good relationship! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+and-then Posted December 19, 2012 Author #14 Share Posted December 19, 2012 You mean the Cold War prevented the world from having a third world war? Almost certainly. With the advent of such powerful weapons humanity had to rethink the goals of war since "winning and losing" stopped mattering if the reality was that everyone would possibly be destroyed. So war morphed into what we see today. Low level sapping of energies by combatants. Terror to demoralize and weaken populations. It wasn't until the new breed gained strength that the old horrors returned in force. The religious fanatic might even welcome death so what does he have to fear? Some here will tar me with this brush but I reject it. I hurt no one with my opinions and have never advocated anyone be destroyed because they do not believe in the Lord Jesus. The fanatic can envision a victory from the use of nukes and when the day comes that they ever obtain one it will be used, somewhere, somehow. I suspect there is a plan in a drawer somewhere in the Pentagon that explains how many trucks, tanks, jets and MRE's it'll take to strike Pakistan if a revolution happened and the Taliban were near to taking control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpandMyMind Posted December 19, 2012 #15 Share Posted December 19, 2012 You mean the Cold War prevented the world from having a third world war? Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now