A nuclear Iran would endanger world stability

[Karlis 260]

"We have to stand firm on our two feet, open-eyed, without a drop of self-delusion about the realities of our neighborhood, but having one hand, preferably the left hand, looking for any window, turning every stone in order to find opportunities for peace, while the other hand, the right one, will be pointing a finger, very close to the trigger, ready to pull it when it is ultimately a necessity," Barak said.

Read more...

[Pseudo Intellectual 1]

That's a great quote.

[stevewinn 12,942]

and the man is right. whenever you are in a position to strike an enemy and you can be assured of success you should do it. because there will come a day when you cannot assure victory and you will pay a much heavier price.

[AzTide 7]

Well using that logic lets abandon Afghanistan and we just take out Pakistan also? It's only a matter of time before their nuclear weapons are compromised by terrorists or Islamic crazies.

[MARAB0D 4]

At all my respect to Barak, he was never authorised to speak on behalf of the entire world, we have UN institutions for this. Much more appropriate would be for him to say that nuclear Iran would endanger Israel, and from this premise the further discussion can be started.

[Pseudo Intellectual 1]

It really doesn't matter who said it; it's true. Iran is already doing its best to destabilize the region and, to an extent, the world. Imagine what would happen if they had nuclear weapons.

[MichaelW 106]

Notice it's only Israel Iran wants to blast the crap out of. And when it does, all the fallout will cover Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, the Palestinian Territories and Syria and riddle the population with cancer. Besides, why should Israel be worried? They have nuclear capabilites too as well as the antimissile missiles they keep somewhere.

[Pseudo Intellectual 1]

What makes you think it's just Israel? Iran has repeatedly threatened other countries as well, from Egypt to the UK.

[AzTide 7]

What makes you think it's just Israel? Iran has repeatedly threatened other countries as well, from Egypt to the UK.

You left out Germany and that they'd love to nuke a US battle group in the Persian Gulf...

[Pseudo Intellectual 1]

Well, the US is pretty obvious, so I didn't mention it.

[Q24 434]

Israel have been openly talking about a strike on Iran for a couple of years now and have previously carried out a provocative exercise simulating such. The latest piece of news on Israeli military hardware is that they now have a fleet of drones which could only be used for offensive purposes.

The last I heard of Iran, they were purchasing missiles useful only for defensive purposes and making statement along the lines of, “We will not be the ones to start a war”.

It is very clear who the aggressor is here.

[Pseudo Intellectual 1]

Yep. The ones who support, fund and arm terrorist groups.

[Q24 434]

Yep. The ones who support, fund and arm terrorist groups.

Define terrorist - the word bothers me.

[Pseudo Intellectual 1]

Don't need to define it for you. It's pretty clear that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah are terrorist groups.

But, just in case you truly don't know: Terrorism is use of violence against civilian targets to induce fear and panic for political purposes.

[MARAB0D 4]

You left out Germany and that they'd love to nuke a US battle group in the Persian Gulf...

So, would it work the other way around too? I mean if an Iranian battlegroup is suddenly found in Hudson river, would the threat to deter it be a threat to attack Iran itself?

[Q24 434]

Don't need to define it for you. It's pretty clear that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah are terrorist groups.

I heard that the C.I.A. and U.S. army are officially terrorists in some parts of the world now.

But, just in case you truly don't know: Terrorism is use of violence against civilian targets to induce fear and panic for political purposes.

So you measure terrorism by the killing of civilians in achieving a political aim, interesting…

• 2003 Iraq War civilian casualties: -
  Iraqi: 104,257 dead
  United States: 0 dead
  
• 2006 Lebanon War civilian casualties: -
  Lebanese: 1,191 dead
  Israeli: 44 dead
  
• 2008 Gaza War civilian casualties: -
  Palestinian: 926 dead
  Israeli: 3 dead
  

Who are the terrorists?

• 2010 Iran War civilian casualties: -
  Iranian: how many will this read?
  Israeli: how about this one?
  

You want those figures on your head by supporting a pre-emptive Israeli strike?

[Professor Buzzkill 2,587]

I remember hearing about David Lange who argueed that nuclear weapons were morally indefensible and won a debate in oxford in 1985.

His points are still valid today. I would argue that any country that wants nuclear weapons should be invaded and the govt. overthrown. But that would only work if all govt. were open with their policies.

[MARAB0D 4]

I remember hearing about David Lange who argueed that nuclear weapons were morally indefensible and won a debate in oxford in 1985.

His points are still valid today. I would argue that any country that wants nuclear weapons should be invaded and the govt. overthrown. But that would only work if all govt. were open with their policies.

When in early 19th century British industry started to use mechanical looms for wool, there was a workers' movement, named after some legendary Mr Ludd, the alleged initiator of it, Luddites. They were attacking the factories and breaking the new machines, as these machines were making them unemployed. Their brothers in France were throwing the wooden shoes, "sabo" into the looms, and since we have the word "sabotage". None of these movements ever achieved any success, as it is practically impossible to stop the progress, no matter how strongly one wants it. Progress is fatal in the sense of its powers.

Same way, no one and no treaty would ever be able to stop nuclear proliferation, as when it takes the mass scale the potential invaders simply do not have the resources to invade the rest of the world. We are to be prepared for every cat and dog to have a nuke in near future.

[Professor Buzzkill 2,587]

When in early 19th century British industry started to use mechanical looms for wool, there was a workers' movement, named after some legendary Mr Ludd, the alleged initiator of it, Luddites. They were attacking the factories and breaking the new machines, as these machines were making them unemployed. Their brothers in France were throwing the wooden shoes, "sabo" into the looms, and since we have the word "sabotage". None of these movements ever achieved any success, as it is practically impossible to stop the progress, no matter how strongly one wants it. Progress is fatal in the sense of its powers.

Same way, no one and no treaty would ever be able to stop nuclear proliferation, as when it takes the mass scale the potential invaders simply do not have the resources to invade the rest of the world. We are to be prepared for every cat and dog to have a nuke in near future.

Then all it takes is one unstable "Dog" to doom us all

[MARAB0D 4]

Then all it takes is one unstable "Dog" to doom us all

Too bad! Means we are doomed anyway - is not it better to just relax? There has to be the end for us anyway, as our civilization can only exist by consuming non-replaceable resources, so sooner or later they would end and we would be brutally starved. A quick death is better than a slow one!

[MARAB0D 4]

In fact, Prof Gb, there would be a sense to promptly NUKE any country which tries to make the nukes - then it may work as a warning to the others. But as soon as we, as a group, would never do this due to our individual political and economic interests, this is off the table. One definitely needs to nuke Saudi Arabia, as it presents more danger than a nuclear Iran - but who exactly would authorise this?

[Professor Buzzkill 2,587]

Well i for one am proud of my country (and yours) for being nuclear free in every way. Maybe by setting an example we can delay the inevitable, but i think you are correct. As soon as a nut case like mahmoud ahmadinejad has a nuke at his finger tips i don't think anyone is safe. Also i heard that almost 50% of the Pakistan military sympathize with the Taliban. Imagine what a military coup would do to world stability when muslim extremists anywhere have nuke's

[MARAB0D 4]

Well i for one am proud of my country (and yours) for being nuclear free in every way. Maybe by setting an example we can delay the inevitable, but i think you are correct. As soon as a nut case like mahmoud ahmadinejad has a nuke at his finger tips i don't think anyone is safe. Also i heard that almost 50% of the Pakistan military sympathize with the Taliban. Imagine what a military coup would do to world stability when muslim extremists anywhere have nuke's

I think if Pakistan has any shadow of the upcoming troubles, India would make a sea bottom out of it, so it is not our worries, we have the caretakers Iran, on the other hand, is a historically peaceful country which for the last 2000 years never started and never won a single war. They are great in trade though.

[Professor Buzzkill 2,587]

I think if Pakistan has any shadow of the upcoming troubles, India would make a sea bottom out of it, so it is not our worries, we have the caretakers Iran, on the other hand, is a historically peaceful country which for the last 2000 years never started and never won a single war. They are great in trade though.

And perhaps they are seeing the surrounding countries without nukes (Iraq and Afganistan) being invaded and those countries with nuke who are probably more of threat (North Korea) not being invaded.

[MARAB0D 4]

And perhaps they are seeing the surrounding countries without nukes (Iraq and Afganistan) being invaded and those countries with nuke who are probably more of threat (North Korea) not being invaded.

In the recent historical past Iran was about 5-6 times larger than today. In some areas the Persians were outnumbered by the Turcic people, in some they preserved the majority (like Tadjikistan). Certain countries around them have substantial Persian minorities, which would like to be again a part of Iran - Afghanistan, Iraq... These issues are to be settled naturally, maybe even through the voting, as one has to admit sooner or later that the historical borders between the nations are more valid than a pencil-drawn borders within the former British Empire. Iran has its plans, but Mexico has them too. Its THEIR business, not mine or yours or anyone else's.