Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Talon

Iran defies nuclear referral risk

111 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Talon

Iran defies nuclear referral risk

By Frances Harrison

BBC News, Tehran

Iran's new foreign minister has warned of "consequences" if Europe refers Iran to the United Nations Security Council over its nuclear programme.

Speaking at a news conference, Dr Manucher Mottaki said there was no legal basis for referral because Iran had been very transparent.

He ruled out any renewed suspension of uranium conversion in the future.

But he did say Tehran favoured carrying on negotiations and would look at having more parties around the table.

'Lose-lose situation'

Talks with the European Union are unlikely, however, as Europe says Iran's decision last month to resume conversion of uranium violated the agreement underpinning months of negotiations.

Dr Mottaki has warned that referring Iran to the UN over its nuclear programme would be what he called "a lose-lose situation".

Asked if such a move would prompt Tehran to suspend its adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the minister said no such decision had yet been made.

A group of MPs has started collecting signatures for a bill obliging Iran to pull out of the NPT if it is referred to the UN.

It is not clear how serious this move is. A senior parliamentarian has told an Iranian website that the MPs do not represent the final view of parliament.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/worl...ast/4234994.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr
A group of MPs has started collecting signatures for a bill obliging Iran to pull out of the NPT if it is referred to the UN.

It is not clear how serious this move is. A senior parliamentarian has told an Iranian website that the MPs do not represent the final view of parliament.

It's probabely as serious of a move as that of the Europeans referring Iran to the UN's Security Council. Fortunately, the group of MPs don't represent the final view of parliament and the Europeans don't represent the final view of the rest of the world. geek.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Ok, so what if Iran developes nuclear weapons? Any country with their finger out of their butt can do that. The question is whether or not the nuclear posture is offensive or defensive.

Look, we might as well settle into the fact that other countries WILL develope nuclear weapons. It's not an "if", rather a "when" They see it as their own "regional security"

Like it or not, it is their call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr_Strangelove
Ok, so what if Iran developes nuclear weapons? Any country with their finger out of their butt can do that. The question is whether or not the nuclear posture is offensive or defensive.

Look, we might as well settle into the fact that other countries WILL develope nuclear weapons. It's not an "if", rather a "when" They see it as their own "regional security"

Like it or not, it is their call.

839533[/snapback]

Actually I agree, any nation that decides it wants nuclear weapons probably can have nuclear weapons. Along with this they should also accept the fact that they will more readily be targetted by other nations that have nuclear weapons. In the case of Iran if they want the bomb they will almost inevitably be targetted by one or more other nuclear powers. It won't matter if they adopt a offensive or defensive stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr
Along with this they should also accept the fact that they will more readily be targetted by other nations that have nuclear weapons
The only nation ever targetted by nukes was Japan which didn't have nukes herself. We haven't seen any nuclear state being the target of a nuclear attack; I think this should be enough to show how baseless the above statement is. yes.gif

In the case of Iran if they want the bomb they will almost inevitably be targetted by one or more other nuclear powers. It won't matter if they adopt a offensive or defensive stance.

I wouldn't make too many unfounded prophecies and make them look valid by using words such as 'inevitably'. no.gif

I know there are some boring, nuke loving, Iran haters out there who dream of nuking us and certainly love to talk about it. sleepy.gif My prophecy (not to be taken seriously since I'm not a prophet rolleyes.gif ), regarding them is that they will be very deceived and will just have to be happy with seeing that dream come through in childish war games played on computers, especially since the one who would be able to nuke Iran and face the dire consequences of it has not even been born yet. grin2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baku

I agree zephyr and besides the last time they actually used WMD was on Iran, anyone remember the Kurds and Persians that were killed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thebarman
The only nation ever targetted by nukes was Japan which didn't have nukes herself. We haven't seen any nuclear state being the target of a nuclear attack; I think this should be enough to show how baseless the above statement is. yes.gif

839739[/snapback]

I think you're taking the word "Targeted" out of context there. The only nation ever hit by nukes is Japan, but I'm sure more will have been targeted.

The reason no one nukes a country that has nukes is because you'll get nuked back. Which is of course why the cold war remained...well, cold.

I think the point being implied by Dr_Strangelove is that when a country becomes a nuclear power the other nuclear powers point a few nukes their way...just in case.

This will obviously never be proven, who would admit such a thing, but given the attitude some countries have towards nuclear weapons combined with their attitudes towards cultures they don't understand or simply don't like, it is almost undoubtedly true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr
I think you're taking the word "Targeted" out of context there. The only nation ever hit by nukes is Japan, but I'm sure more will have been target
I used the word in the context that our Doc uses it. According to him, even now that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, Iran is 'targeted' by nukes and they play these games all the time, so when he talks about Iran being a 'target' if, and after having acquired nuclear weapons, he really means what you refer to as 'hit'. yes.gif

The reason no one nukes a country that has nukes is because you'll get nuked back. Which is of course why the cold war remained...well, cold.

That's exactly why the more you threaten countries without nukes with those weapons, the more you encourage them to acquire them so as to make sure everything remains 'cold'. yes.gif

think the point being implied by Dr_Strangelove is that when a country becomes a nuclear power the other nuclear powers point a few nukes their way...just in case
Again according to the good doctor, those nukes are already pointed at Iran and have been for a long time. yes.gif

I agree zephyr and besides the last time they actually used WMD was on Iran, anyone remember the Kurds and Persians that were killed?
Of course WMD have been used against Iran, notably by that lunatic Saddam. However, my personal view is that Iran does not need nuclear weopons, she has many other cards she could play to keep any potential warmongering lunatic at bay. One has to count on the good functioning of the IAEA, and the commom sense of the Iranian government to keep its word to its own people and the world and not fabricate nuclear weapons. yes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs
Ok, so what if Iran developes nuclear weapons? Any country with their finger out of their butt can do that. The question is whether or not the nuclear posture is offensive or defensive.

Look, we might as well settle into the fact that other countries WILL develope nuclear weapons. It's not an "if", rather a "when" They see it as their own "regional security"

Like it or not, it is their call.

839533[/snapback]

Actually I agree, any nation that decides it wants nuclear weapons probably can have nuclear weapons. Along with this they should also accept the fact that they will more readily be targetted by other nations that have nuclear weapons. In the case of Iran if they want the bomb they will almost inevitably be targetted by one or more other nuclear powers. It won't matter if they adopt a offensive or defensive stance.

839666[/snapback]

So true.

Iran is walking down the garden path. whistling2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr_Strangelove
I think you're taking the word "Targeted" out of context there. The only nation ever hit by nukes is Japan, but I'm sure more will have been target
I used the word in the context that our Doc uses it. According to him, even now that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, Iran is 'targeted' by nukes and they play these games all the time, so when he talks about Iran being a 'target' if, and after having acquired nuclear weapons, he really means what you refer to as 'hit'. yes.gif

The reason no one nukes a country that has nukes is because you'll get nuked back. Which is of course why the cold war remained...well, cold.

That's exactly why the more you threaten countries without nukes with those weapons, the more you encourage them to acquire them so as to make sure everything remains 'cold'. yes.gif

think the point being implied by Dr_Strangelove is that when a country becomes a nuclear power the other nuclear powers point a few nukes their way...just in case
Again according to the good doctor, those nukes are already pointed at Iran and have been for a long time. yes.gif

I agree zephyr and besides the last time they actually used WMD was on Iran, anyone remember the Kurds and Persians that were killed?
Of course WMD have been used against Iran, notably by that lunatic Saddam. However, my personal view is that Iran does not need nuclear weopons, she has many other cards she could play to keep any potential warmongering lunatic at bay. One has to count on the good functioning of the IAEA, and the commom sense of the Iranian government to keep its word to its own people and the world and not fabricate nuclear weapons. yes.gif

839829[/snapback]

You're wrong Zephyr. I have been part of targetting studies for about two decades now. The United States has always known it was targetted by the old Soviet Union.

Targetting simply means to aim the missiles at you.

I'll bet that the first nation to target Iran when they get their own bomb will first be Israel and then the Russians. By the way, I don't hate Iran. I just know a lot of very professional men and women who will respond if Iran does something stupid with their nifty new bomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mekorig

I agree whit Dr. Strangelove in this one. Almost all the nuclear powers in this world have some misiles "targeted" nto each other "just in case". Even the UK had some misiles targeted to Argentina just a few years ago. A zephyr, i usually suport your positions, but its a little naive not to think that your gov isnt looking to get nuclear warheads. Its a valid option, if other have it, why no them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs

I think zep is trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr_Strangelove
I agree whit Dr. Strangelove in this one. Almost all the nuclear powers in this world have some misiles "targeted" nto each other "just in case". Even the UK had some misiles targeted to Argentina just a few years ago. A zephyr, i usually suport your positions, but its a little naive not to think that your gov isnt looking to get nuclear warheads. Its a valid option, if other have it, why no them?

840802[/snapback]

Let me try to make it a little clearer.

If you want to have nuclear weapons then you further open up the possibility of somebody using nuclear weapons against you.

There really isn't anything complicated about it. If you decide to have nukes it won't matter what you say; people will aim nukes at you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr

I think you're taking the word "Targeted" out of context there. The only nation ever hit by nukes is Japan, but I'm sure more will have been target
I used the word in the context that our Doc uses it. According to him, even now that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, Iran is 'targeted' by nukes and they play these games all the time, so when he talks about Iran being a 'target' if, and after having acquired nuclear weapons, he really means what you refer to as 'hit'. :yes:

The reason no one nukes a country that has nukes is because you'll get nuked back. Which is of course why the cold war remained...well, cold.

That's exactly why the more you threaten countries without nukes with those weapons, the more you encourage them to acquire them so as to make sure everything remains 'cold'. :yes:

think t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr
I think you're taking the word "Targeted" out of context there. The only nation ever hit by nukes is Japan, but I'm sure more will have been target
I used the word in the context that our Doc uses it. According to him, even now that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, Iran is 'targeted' by nukes and they play these games all the time, so when he talks about Iran being a 'target' if, and after having acquired nuclear weapons, he really means what you refer to as 'hit'. yes.gif

The reason no one nukes a country that has nukes is because you'll get nuked back. Which is of course why the cold war remained...well, cold.

That's exactly why the more you threaten countries without nukes with those weapons, the more you encourage them to acquire them so as to make sure everything remains 'cold'. yes.gif

think the point being implied by Dr_Strangelove is that when a country becomes a nuclear power the other nuclear powers point a few nukes their way...just in case
Again according to the good doctor, those nukes are already pointed at Iran and have been for a long time. yes.gif

I agree zephyr and besides the last time they actually used WMD was on Iran, anyone remember the Kurds and Persians that were killed?
Of course WMD have been used against Iran, notably by that lunatic Saddam. However, my personal view is that Iran does not need nuclear weopons, she has many other cards she could play to keep any potential warmongering lunatic at bay. One has to count on the good functioning of the IAEA, and the commom sense of the Iranian government to keep its word to its own people and the world and not fabricate nuclear weapons. yes.gif

839829[/snapback]

You're wrong Zephyr. I have been part of targetting studies for about two decades now. The United States has always known it was targetted by the old Soviet Union.

Targetting simply means to aim the missiles at you.

I'll bet that the first nation to target Iran when they get their own bomb will first be Israel and then the Russians. By the way, I don't hate Iran. I just know a lot of very professional men and women who will respond if Iran does something stupid with their nifty new bomb.

840795[/snapback]

I think you're taking the word "Targeted" out of context there. The only nation ever hit by nukes is Japan, but I'm sure more will have been target
I used the word in the context that our Doc uses it. According to him, even now that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, Iran is 'targeted' by nukes and they play these games all the time, so when he talks about Iran being a 'target' if, and after having acquired nuclear weapons, he really means what you refer to as 'hit'. yes.gif

The reason no one nukes a country that has nukes is because you'll get nuked back. Which is of course why the cold war remained...well, cold.

That's exactly why the more you threaten countries without nukes with those weapons, the more you encourage them to acquire them so as to make sure everything remains 'cold'. yes.gif

think the point being implied by Dr_Strangelove is that when a country becomes a nuclear power the other nuclear powers point a few nukes their way...just in case
Again according to the good doctor, those nukes are already pointed at Iran and have been for a long time. yes.gif

I agree zephyr and besides the last time they actually used WMD was on Iran, anyone remember the Kurds and Persians that were killed?
Of course WMD have been used against Iran, notably by that lunatic Saddam. However, my personal view is that Iran does not need nuclear weopons, she has many other cards she could play to keep any potential warmongering lunatic at bay. One has to count on the good functioning of the IAEA, and the commom sense of the Iranian government to keep its word to its own people and the world and not fabricate nuclear weapons. yes.gif

839829[/snapback]

You're wrong Zephyr. I have been part of targetting studies for about two decades now. The United States has always known it was targetted by the old Soviet Union.

Targetting simply means to aim the missiles at you.

I'll bet that the first nation to target Iran when they get their own bomb will first be Israel and then the Russians. By the way, I don't hate Iran. I just know a lot of very professional men and women who will respond if Iran does something stupid with their nifty new bomb.

840795[/snapback]

How am I wrong? ohmy.gif What you say about the US knowing about being targeted by the old Soviets just proves my point further that Iran also knows it's being targeted even now that it does not have nukes. wasn't it just a few weeks ago that some lunatics had drawn up a plan to nuke Iran if the terrorists attack? ohmy.gif Seen from where I'm sitting, things just don't look the way you perceive them to be which is a naive perception. yes.gif

So if targetting 'simply' means pointing nukes at you, what is the difference between Iran not having nukes and having them since it's being targeted anyway? I just don't regard pointing nukes at people as 'simple' as you regard it; in fact I find it quite primitive and jungle-like! geek.gif

You let us worry about Israel and Russia when and if Iran has nukes and stop looking for proxies to nuke us based on hypothetical, far-fetched assumptions. You should make sure that those 'professionals' don't do something stupid with their nifty old bombs since they might end up hurting themselves first. yes.gif

A zephyr, i usually suport your positions, but its a little naive not to think that your gov isnt looking to get nuclear warheads. Its a valid option, if other have it, why no them?
I think you haven't read my posts properly since nowhere do I mention what you suppose I mention. I don't think fabricating nukes is a valid option for Iran since it doesn't need it and that would cause more problems than it would solve for this country. However, the warmongers who like to show-off their nukes have a hard time realizing that the more threats they use against Iran, the more the government could justify with its own people at least, the making of nukes. The question isn't really whether the gov. wants to have nukes or not, the real question is if they can do it in face of strong internal and external opposition to such venture and since obviously foreign powers are incapable of stopping them, the only option left is to count on the Iranian people. In fact I am against Iran having nukes, but the more I read the posts of like Dr. strangelove and Babs, the more persuaded I get that maybe having nukes is not such a bad idea after all. rolleyes.gif

I think zep is trying to pull the wool over our eyes
I think Fox News has already pulled the wool over your eyes, Babs! grin2.gif

If you want to have nuclear weapons then you further open up the possibility of somebody using nuclear weapons against you.

That is a baseless theory from where I'm sitting since we have been threatened with nukes on a number of occasions and we don't even have them. mellow.gif

There really isn't anything complicated about it. If you decide to have nukes it won't matter what you say; people will aim nukes at you.
That's the difference between you and I doc; you consider pointing nukes at people a very simple and uncomplicated matter while I consider it as a barbaric matter, especially when they are pointed at you by ignorant warmongers before you even have nukes. sleepy.gif

ps. Sorry about the messy post, the first one needs to be deleted. original.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr_Strangelove
I think you're taking the word "Targeted" out of context there. The only nation ever hit by nukes is Japan, but I'm sure more will have been target
I used the word in the context that our Doc uses it. According to him, even now that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, Iran is 'targeted' by nukes and they play these games all the time, so when he talks about Iran being a 'target' if, and after having acquired nuclear weapons, he really means what you refer to as 'hit'. yes.gif

The reason no one nukes a country that has nukes is because you'll get nuked back. Which is of course why the cold war remained...well, cold.

That's exactly why the more you threaten countries without nukes with those weapons, the more you encourage them to acquire them so as to make sure everything remains 'cold'. yes.gif

think the point being implied by Dr_Strangelove is that when a country becomes a nuclear power the other nuclear powers point a few nukes their way...just in case
Again according to the good doctor, those nukes are already pointed at Iran and have been for a long time. yes.gif

I agree zephyr and besides the last time they actually used WMD was on Iran, anyone remember the Kurds and Persians that were killed?
Of course WMD have been used against Iran, notably by that lunatic Saddam. However, my personal view is that Iran does not need nuclear weopons, she has many other cards she could play to keep any potential warmongering lunatic at bay. One has to count on the good functioning of the IAEA, and the commom sense of the Iranian government to keep its word to its own people and the world and not fabricate nuclear weapons. yes.gif

839829[/snapback]

You're wrong Zephyr. I have been part of targetting studies for about two decades now. The United States has always known it was targetted by the old Soviet Union.

Targetting simply means to aim the missiles at you.

I'll bet that the first nation to target Iran when they get their own bomb will first be Israel and then the Russians. By the way, I don't hate Iran. I just know a lot of very professional men and women who will respond if Iran does something stupid with their nifty new bomb.

840795[/snapback]

I think you're taking the word "Targeted" out of context there. The only nation ever hit by nukes is Japan, but I'm sure more will have been target
I used the word in the context that our Doc uses it. According to him, even now that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, Iran is 'targeted' by nukes and they play these games all the time, so when he talks about Iran being a 'target' if, and after having acquired nuclear weapons, he really means what you refer to as 'hit'. yes.gif

The reason no one nukes a country that has nukes is because you'll get nuked back. Which is of course why the cold war remained...well, cold.

That's exactly why the more you threaten countries without nukes with those weapons, the more you encourage them to acquire them so as to make sure everything remains 'cold'. yes.gif

think the point being implied by Dr_Strangelove is that when a country becomes a nuclear power the other nuclear powers point a few nukes their way...just in case
Again according to the good doctor, those nukes are already pointed at Iran and have been for a long time. yes.gif

I agree zephyr and besides the last time they actually used WMD was on Iran, anyone remember the Kurds and Persians that were killed?
Of course WMD have been used against Iran, notably by that lunatic Saddam. However, my personal view is that Iran does not need nuclear weopons, she has many other cards she could play to keep any potential warmongering lunatic at bay. One has to count on the good functioning of the IAEA, and the commom sense of the Iranian government to keep its word to its own people and the world and not fabricate nuclear weapons. yes.gif

839829[/snapback]

You're wrong Zephyr. I have been part of targetting studies for about two decades now. The United States has always known it was targetted by the old Soviet Union.

Targetting simply means to aim the missiles at you.

I'll bet that the first nation to target Iran when they get their own bomb will first be Israel and then the Russians. By the way, I don't hate Iran. I just know a lot of very professional men and women who will respond if Iran does something stupid with their nifty new bomb.

840795[/snapback]

How am I wrong? ohmy.gif What you say about the US knowing about being targeted by the old Soviets just proves my point further that Iran also knows it's being targeted even now that it does not have nukes. wasn't it just a few weeks ago that some lunatics had drawn up a plan to nuke Iran if the terrorists attack? ohmy.gif Seen from where I'm sitting, things just don't look the way you perceive them to be which is a naive perception. yes.gif

So if targetting 'simply' means pointing nukes at you, what is the difference between Iran not having nukes and having them since it's being targeted anyway? I just don't regard pointing nukes at people as 'simple' as you regard it; in fact I find it quite primitive and jungle-like! geek.gif

You let us worry about Israel and Russia when and if Iran has nukes and stop looking for proxies to nuke us based on hypothetical, far-fetched assumptions. You should make sure that those 'professionals' don't do something stupid with their nifty old bombs since they might end up hurting themselves first. yes.gif

A zephyr, i usually suport your positions, but its a little naive not to think that your gov isnt looking to get nuclear warheads. Its a valid option, if other have it, why no them?
I think you haven't read my posts properly since nowhere do I mention what you suppose I mention. I don't think fabricating nukes is a valid option for Iran since it doesn't need it and that would cause more problems than it would solve for this country. However, the warmongers who like to show-off their nukes have a hard time realizing that the more threats they use against Iran, the more the government could justify with its own people at least, the making of nukes. The question isn't really whether the gov. wants to have nukes or not, the real question is if they can do it in face of strong internal and external opposition to such venture and since obviously foreign powers are incapable of stopping them, the only option left is to count on the Iranian people. In fact I am against Iran having nukes, but the more I read the posts of like Dr. strangelove and Babs, the more persuaded I get that maybe having nukes is not such a bad idea after all. rolleyes.gif

I think zep is trying to pull the wool over our eyes
I think Fox News has already pulled the wool over your eyes, Babs! grin2.gif

If you want to have nuclear weapons then you further open up the possibility of somebody using nuclear weapons against you.

That is a baseless theory from where I'm sitting since we have been threatened with nukes on a number of occasions and we don't even have them. mellow.gif

There really isn't anything complicated about it. If you decide to have nukes it won't matter what you say; people will aim nukes at you.
That's the difference between you and I doc; you consider pointing nukes at people a very simple and uncomplicated matter while I consider it as a barbaric matter, especially when they are pointed at you by ignorant warmongers before you even have nukes. sleepy.gif

ps. Sorry about the messy post, the first one needs to be deleted. original.gif

841426[/snapback]

You just don't get it do you? If you choose to have nuclear weapons you get targetted with nuclear weapons. Thats all there is to it. You decide to own nukes, you face annilation. That all there is to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr
You just don't get it do you? If you choose to have nuclear weapons you get targetted with nuclear weapons. Thats all there is to it. You decide to own nukes, you face annilation. That all there is to it
You just don't get it do you? You have already targetted us with nukes, so those threats about possible future actions seem hopelessly empty and totally ineffective in the real world. As for annihilations and such, I'm not only not offended by that suggestion of yours but I find it rather useless and childish to discuss, especially since that possibilty is as remote as an Eskimo finding a toothless camel in his bed; and that's all there's to that! grin2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babs

You sound so objective and thought out. But your country is getting everyone up in arms. Don't you ever say anything negative about your (own) country?

You are being led down the garden path, zep........or it is you who are leading us? cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baku

All the nuclear power countries are targetting each other always did and always will, enemies, allies, neutral doesnt matter. France has US targetted and so does Isreal and in refurse. You cant deny this. I think everyone knows that if Iran get nukes they will be targetted aswell, and they will offcourse target back. And besides Iran already is been targetted with nukes by US, so you dont neccerily have to have nukes to become targetted. And I gotta agree with zephyr, personally Im against weapons, Im a guy of peace. But after talking with you guys I rather see Iran with nukes then without, you all sounds so paranoia, thinking everyone is a enemy, which makes you guys kinda unstable.

You sound so objective and thought out. But your country is getting everyone up in arms. Don't you ever say anything negative about your (own) country?

You are being led down the garden path, zep........or it is you who are leading us? cool.gif

841609[/snapback]

Why should we say anything negative about Iran? Maybe cuz you think Iran is a bad country and you want us to say that? Sure the Mullahs suck, but they have the best intentions for its people and so does your goverment, which makes no difference. And besides you dont actually think you americans are the only proud civilization on this planet. Anyways thats not the point of this thread. I think Iran should have nukes, with the constant threat of throwing nukes on us, I would feel much better with nukes on Persian side.

Edited by Baku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zephyr
You sound so objective and thought out.
Thank you Babs original.gif You sound like that as well! unsure.gif

But your country is getting everyone up in arms
That might be because everyone is getting my country up in arms. hmm.gif

Don't you ever say anything negative about your (own) country?

Of course I criticize the Iranian government's policies and a lot of other Iranians do so as well; believe me we know our government better than anybody else in the world. Here in these threads though, Iran gets more than its share of criticisms and threats, this doesn't leave much room for me to do much criticizing now, does it Babs? hmm.gif

You are being led down the garden path, zep........or it is you who are leading us
Whatever Babs; what counts is that we're going down that garden path together. wub.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erikl
France has US targetted and so does Isreal and in refurse. You cant deny this.

The only reason Israel has nukes is because simple conventional attack could destroy it. This is not true in the case of all other nuclear powers, who have tens of millions of citizens, and are hundreds of thousands sq km large.

So basically Israel's alledged nuclear ability keeps it safe from another attempt by the Arab world to wipe it out in a conventional war (they have tried 4 times after all...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thebarman
I think Iran should have nukes, with the constant threat of throwing nukes on us, I would feel much better with nukes on Persian side.

841617[/snapback]

Why would that make you feel better? So if you got nuked you could nuke someone back?

It's that attitude that sums up what's wrong with the world. One country has a big weapon so all the other countries want big weapons too.

...and where is this constant threat of nukes you speak of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Baku
I think Iran should have nukes, with the constant threat of throwing nukes on us, I would feel much better with nukes on Persian side.

841617[/snapback]

Why would that make you feel better? So if you got nuked you could nuke someone back?

It's that attitude that sums up what's wrong with the world. One country has a big weapon so all the other countries want big weapons too.

...and where is this constant threat of nukes you speak of?

841806[/snapback]

obviously Yeah, if the US got attacked by nukes you guys are gonna attack back with nukes. Nukes are kinda like a defensive bluffing weapon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stixxman

What makes me nervous zeph is a country that is lead by a man who professes hatred for the way me and many westerners live our lives. I'm nervous about a country with such a bad track record for human rights, an indication of what passes for fair in that country. Face facts zeph there are many decent persian people, but they are not in charge are they, the not so decent fanatical ones are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr_Strangelove

Actually I would be willing to bet that right now the only nukes we have targetted on Iran are a few tactical yield weapons. It really wouldn't be logical for us to aim the high yield weapons at them.

Now if they get a nuke themselves the math behind this sort of thing changes. Then somebody will target them with the big stuff, what some people call the 'city-killers'. We would want to impress them with the idea that if they use a nuke against us we would just slaughter several million of them in about a half hour.

This has always been the wonderful idea of deterrence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.