It's too late to halt Iran nuclear bomb

[ballz2wallz]

Perhaps my desire to see someone do something about Iran's acquiring nuclear technology has gone unheard after all.

Iran will be able to develop enough weapons-grade material for a nuclear bomb and there is little that can be done to prevent it, an internal European Union document has concluded.

For those of you who have been arguing that their having nuclear technology presents no threat, I hope you're right. If not, bad things are about to happen, and it's far worse than global warming.

[Kytro]

All nuclear weapons increase the probability of one of them being used. I don't see Iran as a major threat to anyone but Israel, even then attaking them with a nuke would be unlikely.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Kytro

All nuclear weapons increase the probability of one of them being used. I don't see Iran as a major threat to anyone but Israel, even then attaking them with a nuke would be unlikely.

Do you not think Iran is capable of giving them away?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Do you not think Iran is capable of giving them away?

There is that possibility, though I don't believe that they would want other to possess that sort of power.

Conventional weapons are one thing, a way to harass Israel - but a nuclear weapon is something else. I see the threat against Israel largely as rhetoric.

[Donkey®]

Iran's nukes won't be anymore dangerous than ours.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Iran's nukes won't be anymore dangerous than ours.

From a proliferation standpoint, this is a very untrue statement.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Iran's nukes won't be anymore dangerous than ours.

Like I said in the OP, I hope to God you're right.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

From a proliferation standpoint, this is a very untrue statement.

What is a "proliferation standpoint?" Either a country has nukes or they don't. We have thousands of them...which makes them more likely to get lost, stolen or misused. WE are more dangerous than Iran and their one nuke.

[RX Bandit]

The important issues to keep in mind with Iran and the bomb are these:
- the Islamic Republic of Iran is a multiethnic country, it is not Arab. Islam is not enough of a tie to the Palestinians to even worry about their deaths should Iran launch a nuclear strike against Israel. It is after all the Arabs of Iraq who gassed Iranians in the 80s...and it is also the Arab Palestinians who failed to hold their land and prevent the establishment of Israel on their own land (this is from their perspective, not mine)
- quoting from Richard Rhodes "every nation that has attempted to build an atomic weapon in the half-century since the discovery of nuclear fission has succeeded on the first try". This is not an issue of "if" but "when". We know China has a favorable balance of trade with rising oil contracts from Persia while sending back technological and educational expertise. We know Russia proxies physically guard the industries converted (or that could be easily converted) into the nuclear program; and Russian military incendiary weapons protect these installations.
- China has more to lose from backing Iran in a war than remaining neutral or even coming in on the side of US/Israel/Europe/Jordan/Saudi Arabia. Russia is a wild card with Putin at the reins but China will moderate them. This leaves Iran's principal allies as Hizbullah (half crippled), Hamas (distracted with Fatah), and Syria.

The recent developments with North Korea are promising but will not be applicable to Iran, one of the world's most nationalistic countries. As long as Iran is run by the Guardian Council in Qom they will not give up working towards the bomb and as Richard Rhodes indicates, we are on the clock and it is ticking down quickly.

In the face of all of these facts is there really an option that isn't a military option? Israel will not launch first strike under Olmert the Coward after he removed Dan Halutz from IDF Chief of Staff earlier.

The Saudi factor will apply pressure as the royal family has already started playing cute in talking about vastly ramping up production to toy with Iran, but the Saudis are not going to be incendiary beyond simple economics.

I've yet to read any resolution or suggestion on Iran that does not end with crushing the Islamic regime.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

What is a "proliferation standpoint?" Either a country has nukes or they don't. We have thousands of them...which makes them more likely to get lost, stolen or misused. WE are more dangerous than Iran and their one nuke.

I'd say our thousands of nukes and nuclear technologies are most likely much more secure from proliferation than Iran's nukes and nuclear technologies will be once they have a few.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

What is a "proliferation standpoint?" Either a country has nukes or they don't. We have thousands of them...which makes them more likely to get lost, stolen or misused. WE are more dangerous than Iran and their one nuke.

That is absolute nonsense. The issue has always been one of restraint and control. An unstable government that is more likely to sell one or use one as an act of vengence is far more dangerous. If you would care to look at the Cuban Missile Crisis for example you will find complete Soviet Military control over those Nukes in Cuba. They would not be so foolish as to just hand them over to Castro.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

That is absolute nonsense. The issue has always been one of restraint and control. An unstable government that is more likely to sell one or use one as an act of vengence is far more dangerous. If you would care to look at the Cuban Missile Crisis for example you will find complete Soviet Military control over those Nukes in Cuba. They would not be so foolish as to just hand them over to Castro.

Who the hell determines what government is "stable?" OUR government is the one invading other countries.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by RX Bandit

I've yet to read any resolution or suggestion on Iran that does not end with crushing the Islamic regime.

Wow. Biased much? Anywho...replace "Iran" with "Israel" and replace "Islamic regime" with "Zionist regime" you'll then see how most Muslims view your country.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Who the hell determines what government is "stable?"

The 188 signers of the NPT, of which Iran was one.

[RX Bandit]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Wow. Biased much? Anywho...replace "Iran" with "Israel" and replace "Islamic regime" with "Zionist regime" you'll then see how most Muslims view your country.

If you couldn't tell from my avatar/life experiences slowly coming out on this forum/user title then yes, I am biased much.

I've also worked for the Israeli consulate and done independent foreign policy research on the Near East (I am an International Relations graduate student for a few more weeks until I drop out and start law school). If you don't come from the other forum (rule #1 ) I freely admit to being a neocon and I've frequently been honest about the assistance I received in researching from the PNAC, which I was a huge fan of (and still hold in high regard).

With all of that being said the "zionist regime" as you want to term it has free elections in the only true democratic country of the Near East (save for Turkey but with the most recent coup having been in my lifetime it still misses a benchmark that Israel has achieved. This zionist regime also doesn't have egregious human rights abuses of its own citizens (like Iran's recent spectacles of Ahmadinejad's "chain gang" tortures and murders) but it does allow women unfettered access to the highest levels of society.

Oh and guess what, the chief of Shin Bet is Druze. And one more, we have an Arab Supreme Court Justice.

Find me a Jew placed anywhere in the government of an Arab country.

If you want to compare apples to tasty oranges go to the market and make a fruit salad. Don't compare democracy to theocracy.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

The 188 signers of the NPT, of which Iran was one.

So were we and we ignore it all the time too. BTW, Iran could have chosen to drop out of the NPT at any time without punishment...yet they chose to stay in and abide by the rules...why? Hmmmm... It was only until the US wouldn't stop bothering them did they stop cooperating.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by RX Bandit

With all of that being said the "zionist regime" as you want to term it has free elections in the only true democratic country of the Near East (save for Turkey but with the most recent coup having been in my lifetime it still misses a benchmark that Israel has achieved. This zionist regime also doesn't have egregious human rights abuses of its own citizens (like Iran's recent spectacles of Ahmadinejad's "chain gang" tortures and murders) but it does allow women unfettered access to the highest levels of society.

Yet Iran has the second highest Jew population in the Middle East after Israel. You claim they hate Jews yet they haven't even managed to stick their own in ovens yet? Not a very good sign of their ability to destroy your people is it?

Originally Posted by RX Bandit

Oh and guess what, the chief of Shin Bet is Druze. And one more, we have an Arab Supreme Court Justice.

So what? We don't have a Muslim Supreme Court Justice. I guess we hate Muslims. Irrelevant information.

Originally Posted by RX Bandit

Find me a Jew placed anywhere in the government of an Arab country.

Again, I am not sure why this matters at all?

Originally Posted by RX Bandit

If you want to compare apples to tasty oranges go to the market and make a fruit salad. Don't compare democracy to theocracy.

Right...because a democracy is always bet er than all other forms of government. Seems like the war in Iraq was started by a democratic government...aided by a few more democratic governments.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

The 188 signers of the NPT, of which Iran was one.

We have broken that treaty many times over.

[nbiggershaft]

You asked this.

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Who the hell determines what government is "stable?"

The world responded with the NPT.

Our country keeps it's nuclear security tight, there is little chance of largescale governmental change. Their are no foreseeable circumstances in which we will give nuclear technology to private entities. We are a "stable" country.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

We have broken that treaty many times over.

far from the point