Can someone explain to me what'd be so bad about Iran getting nukes?

SpicyMcVoodoo · 09-01-2006, 03:17 AM

Wouldn't mutually assured destruction prevent them from actually using them?

Thorgrim · 09-01-2006, 03:58 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Wouldn't mutually assured destruction prevent them from actually using them?

Regime is too unstable...and this isn't Soviet Russia where communists would rather see WW3 than communist fall

If the mullahs see that the people will reject them and try to topple them, they can use nuclear war to try and bring about the "end of days" something the soviets never would have done, Karl Marx never spoke of the "end of days"...Radical Shia Islam does

kinggovernor · 09-01-2006, 04:42 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Regime is too unstable...and this isn't Soviet Russia where communists would rather see WW3 than communist fall

If the mullahs see that the people will reject them and try to topple them, they can use nuclear war to try and bring about the "end of days" something the soviets never would have done, Karl Marx never spoke of the "end of days"...Radical Shia Islam does

holy shit

archangel003 · 09-01-2006, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Wouldn't mutually assured destruction prevent them from actually using them?

Muslims who consider it an honor to be martyred shouldn't possess weapons of mass destruction.

Thorgrim · 09-01-2006, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by archangel003

Muslims who consider it an honor to be martyred shouldn't possess weapons of mass destruction.

There are many in Pakistan's military force, infact those incharge of their nukes, who would consider it an honor to be martyrs...I guess we should invade there too?

SpicyMcVoodoo · 09-01-2006, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by archangel003

Muslims who consider it an honor to be martyred shouldn't possess weapons of mass destruction.

It's one thing for a guy in Iran to want to be a suicide bomber. It's another thing for him to kill every man, woman and child in his own country by starting a nuclear war. You think they'd do that? I have my doubts...

SpicyMcVoodoo · 09-01-2006, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Karl Marx never spoke of the "end of days"...Radical Shia Islam does

I wonder how many fundamentalist christians in our country, and in the administration, for that matter, consider a huge war in the middle east, armageddon, etc. to be a part of God's plan?

ballz2wallz · 09-01-2006, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I wonder how many fundamentalist christians in our country, and in the administration, for that matter, consider a huge war in the middle east, armageddon, etc. to be a part of God's plan?

not as many as you'd like to think.

Stylerod · 09-01-2006, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I wonder how many fundamentalist christians in our country, and in the administration, for that matter, consider a huge war in the middle east, armageddon, etc. to be a part of God's plan?

Probably some. But none that would consider it their "duty" to start that armageddon.

ballz2wallz · 09-01-2006, 09:01 AM

to answer the original post, let's consider how many groups, terrorist or not, that iran funds. now let's consider how many of those groups would be willing to use a nuclear bomb.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-01-2006, 09:09 AM

Ummm....

well.....

Thorgrim and Ballz hit the nail on the head....yes I said thorgrim

Diesel66 · 09-01-2006, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

to answer the original post, let's consider how many groups, terrorist or not, that iran funds. now let's consider how many of those groups would be willing to use a nuclear bomb.

Problem with that argument is Iran already has chemical and biological weapons but they havent given them to the terrorist groups.

ballz2wallz · 09-01-2006, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Problem with that argument is Iran already has chemical and biological weapons but they havent given them to the terrorist groups.

how do you know they haven't?

avsp · 09-01-2006, 10:22 AM

One of the consequences about it would be that everyone would know that those who wished to stop it had failed in their task.
The blowback just from that might be a 'bad thing'

The actual way it became apparent could be especially destabilizing

It would further discredit the idea of non-profliferation

I cant see why Iran would give any of their very expensive & highly prized nukes to anyone else. It is not as if its even going to get them any 'plausible deniability' is it?

It is very probably the case that if they are determined to have nukes they can't be stopped short of an invasion.

If Iran does end up with them how will it change things, (assuming the dont fire them immediately)?
Is it really so very terrible? If so then it looks like at least a large but limited short duration invasion doesnt it?

If it really is as bad as many say theres only 3-5 years to finish in Iraq before its time for a quick large jump in & out of Iran, ..., gives Iraqi insurgents a quantifible victory condition.

WickedLou9 · 09-01-2006, 10:27 AM

The biggest fear is IRan's involvement with Hezbollah. Hezbollah has become almost an extension of Iran's goverment. IRan funds them, they arm them, they support them... With a group like that, a group that has no country or borders or infrastructure to attack... you don't have a target to retaliate against.. if Hezbollah got hold of an Iranian made nuke and detonated it in Isreal... could you really retaliate against Iran? I Don't think you can. Not with another nuclear attack anyway. Given Iran's close involvement with Hezbollah.. I don't think that it's unreasonable to think that if Iran were to build a nuclear bomb, that one might somehow fall into the hands of Hezbollah.

Scrum · 09-01-2006, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The biggest fear is IRan's involvement with Hezbollah. Hezbollah has become almost an extension of Iran's goverment. IRan funds them, they arm them, they support them... With a group like that, a group that has no country or borders or infrastructure to attack... you don't have a target to retaliate against.. if Hezbollah got hold of an Iranian made nuke and detonated it in Isreal... could you really retaliate against Iran? I Don't think you can. Not with another nuclear attack anyway. Given Iran's close involvement with Hezbollah.. I don't think that it's unreasonable to think that if Iran were to build a nuclear bomb, that one might somehow fall into the hands of Hezbollah.

As Diesel brought up, they already have chemicle and biological weapons in Iran. Why haven't they used those on Israel through proxy like everyone seems to think they will with nukes?

WickedLou9 · 09-01-2006, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

As Diesel brought up, they already have chemicle and biological weapons in Iran. Why haven't they used those on Israel through proxy like everyone seems to think they will with nukes?

I don't know.

Scrum · 09-01-2006, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't know.

Maybe they aren't as self-destructive as everyone thinks?
Perhaps this is all bluster to keep us from invading?

Diesel66 · 09-01-2006, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

how do you know they haven't?

They havent been used. I doubt the leaders of Iran are stupid enough to give Hezbollah a nuke or vial of smallpox. Hell they havent even given them anything more then smallarms and explosives.

WickedLou9 · 09-01-2006, 10:50 AM

What about the possibility of an arms race in the middle east? IF Iran obtains nukes, it's neighbors will want to do the same and Isreal will need to change it's posture militarily. The Arms race between the US and Russia came dangerously close to nuclear war during the cuban missle crisis. I don't think that most people realize how close we came to destroying the planet. That's not something we really need to see a repeat of.