DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Iranian nuclear weapons

O.K. Here's the deal.

Nothing. NOTHING. NOTHING! is going to so much as slow Iran's development of nuclear weapons. Except direct military action.

Is there any part of that you don't understand? Because tell me so I can come over there and slap you.

The only question is how dangerous will Iran be once they have nuclear weapons.

Stuxnet did a pretty decent job and was rather ingenuous.

so we can have nukes, but they can't?

No. We're the good guys, and of course, the only ones to ever use one...twice

people need to realize, there's a huge difference between a government developing nukes and say...ISIS having nukes. its a night and day difference.

ISIS, Taliban, ETC, they would actually USE it.

official governments? countries around the world has been had nukes, yet the only country acting like big brother is ironically-like you said- the only country that has actually used them.

there's a reason NK and Russia, and other countries haven't used their nukes.

nukes is what gives countries that power. your country has nukes? you can have some say so in global relations that has NOTHING to do with your nukes at the end of the day. its funny how it works.

Nukes is like the official currency of global politics. you have nukes, you have say so.

Not quite as dangerous as the United States.

Do you think Iran would actually sneak a bomb into one of these groups hands? If so, what do you think of the possibility of one of these groups getting one into the U.S. for one of their American sympathizers to detonate?

to be honest i don't think they would. let me clear this real quick: i don't trust any country in the middle east, not even Turkey, and thats my people lol.

however, If Iran developed these nukes, and these Terrorist groups magically got their hands on one? we ALL know which country they would've gotten it from. and no matter how much hatred Iran has for Israel and the US, they would never allow that to happen because thats an instant death sentence.

there's one thing that conquers the hatred muslims in the middle east have toward the US: All full out invasion of the US into the middle east.

they already seen what we did to iraq and afghan. Iranians don't want that to happen to them as well.

Yea, let Iran have Nukes already, we have them so why not them?

Let me see what that nice country has to say about our Allies...

In August 2012, at an annual protest against the existence of Israel, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that "the very existence of the Zionist regime is an insult to humanity" and that "the Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumor. Even if one cell of them is left in one inch of (Palestinian) land, in the future this story (of Israel's existence) will repeat." Ahmadinejad also said that Israel would soon be finished off, and that “the nations of the region will soon finish off the usurper Zionists in the Palestinian land". Ahmadinejad added that "it is dangerous if even 10% of the territory is given to the Zionists." Ahmadinejad also said, "The western powers cannot tolerate criticism of the Zionist regime. They feel compelled to defend it."

OH DEAR!

If I was an Israeli leader, the very day they announced they had a Nuke I would have them bombed back to the stone age.

Let their hair-lipped descendants throw sticks and rocks at us.

so what you're saying is: the "bad" guys need to be nuked just for simply talking bad about Israel?

and you realize he even isn't in charge anymore, right?

and we wonder why the rest of the world thinks americans are idiots. we got this "good guy" attitude, while being not only huge ass instigators, but being the only ones who have used, and has a population so willing to use, nukes.

thank god, seriously, GOD, you aren't in charge. cause you say you're christian, but you're actions and words are anything but.

And you are a fool if you would stand by and let a neighbor build an arsenal to destroy your family and drive you into the sea to drown.

Good Christians have fought throughout our history to keep our Nation safe and strong. I know I was happy to have my Uncle Ernie come home from Japan after not having to invade their fanatical country. POOF! Still fanatical? POOF! Ahhh, friends...

you just don't get it. If you honestly think Iran would use the nukes on Israel while being SURROUNDED by NATO countries, which have US troops WAITING for something to pop off, then you you need to take a long look in the mirror and ask yourself "do i actually know anything".

you know what i just remembered? i asked you a question on the old boards, and you dodged it just like a nice republican.

why don't you ever advocate nuking north korea every time they pop off at the mouth?

it seems people only advocate using nukes when precious Israel gets threatened. like they can't take care of themselves.

j/c

If Iraq would have had nukes, we would never have invaded them. Sometimes nations simply want such power for their own protection. Don't get me wrong, I don't want Iran having nuclear capability, but I do understand their motivation for wanting them.

Unbelievable! You trust Iran, after all their threats to destroy Israel?
Foolish to trust them with Nukes, 3 well placed Nukes in a sneak attack and there would be no more Israel!
I think it is stupid to say they can take care of themselves so we shouldn't support them against their enemies! With that kind of silly logic we can say the same thing about Germany being invaded by Russia!
With Allies like you, our friends in the world would roll their eyes! The only Democracy in loony land and you would throw them to the wolves!
With friends like that, who needs enemas!

I agree. It is not unreasonable for the grownups in the world to make sure the immature kids don't get their hands on Nukes tho.

i see you dodged the question again.

i'm starting to think you just hate middle easterns. i refuse to discuss this any further with you until you answer the question.

YES! Note to self, the dodge still works.

My only real response to this is that I would be willing to wager that if you asked every nation on the face of the earth who the grown ups were and who the immature kids are, I have a feeling you may be surprised by their answers.

Hahahahahahahaha! You guys are afraid of Iran?! Seriously?

I hope this isn't bad mouthing the US for the use of those nukes. Yes, we used them twice. We dropped one on Japan and they thought it was a natural disaster. They had already said they would fight to the last man, woman, and child. We saved our peoples' lives by nuking them a 2nd time. Since then, no one has used them, as we all know how destructive they are. Are you sure Iran won't use them? It would only take one to wipe out enough of Israel to make them no longer a country, and Israel would go down turning Iran into a radioactive wasteland.

That is a slippery slope... basically you are saying that we should use military action against the possibility that a country could gain a certain type of weapon - I see what you are saying even though you say it with a very broad brush against a people. The slope becomes slipper when you say "what about certain intellectual gains, or even enough economic or political power to influence surrounding economies? -where do you draw the line?

I think we are seeing a different type of war being waged in cyber-space these days..that is where I would worry about counties and there is almost nothing we - or the world - can do about it. Moving the battlefield from the physical to the electronic helps level the playing field drastically and strangely puts the top counties at the most risk.

We are celebrating the 70th year of Auschwitz's liberation. Hopefully we can learn from history about the unbridled use of force against a people under the guise of protecting our own freedoms and way of life...IMHO

i'm trying to figure out something.

some posters feel we need to keep certain countries from gaining nukes.

ok, so what if some countries feel they need to rid the US of our nukes?

I would tell them to try and git some. Better yet, we deliver!

Let em try. Ever hear of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

so you're ok with any country invading anybody just because you "think" they MIGHT use a nuke....one day?

so you gonna answer the question or are you just talking out the side of your neck, again.

Didn't say that. Simply underscoring the swift and fierce response the USA is capable of if someone would "feel the need to rid the US of our nukes". Therefore, let em try.

So what's your stance on Iran then?

Let em be til they pose a significant threat to the US.....the US. When that happens, remember Hiroshima. We cannot/should not police the world but we MUST protect the homeland.

Now, as an Independent, did I swing Republican or your beloved Democratic way Swish?

You didn't swing anything. That was a common sense answer, and you answered like any reasonable person would regardless of what side of the fence you're on.

Whoa...just what ARE YOU smoking tonight my friend??? Guess the hook came back empty.

In 1930's the world stood by and watched Germany build up it's military and did nothing. We all know how that turned out. How many lives might've been saved had they acted earlier?

If you want to be reactive, fine. Sometimes it's better to get in front of a problem before it's too late.

You were the one saying we need to police the world. Now you are saying we shouldn't. Which is it?

Afghan Kush

This is very true. We cannot just say that we will stand by and do nothing until it is too late. The best the US can do is to try and work to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of regimes who have been actively associated with terrorism.

Frankly, I wish that there were no such things as nuclear weapons. I see little good that comes from more and more of the world having them. If the rest of the world gains nuclear weapons, then what does the US (or another nuclear power) then work on to "one up" the nuke? No one can convince me that it won't happen. "OK, you have that, well, look at what we have". With the technology that goes into these, what happens if the US, or probably worse, another country, finds a a way to detonate another country's nuclear stockpile in their silos.

I am just concerned about where this type of weaponry is heading. At the time the nuclear bomb was used on Japan, it was almost the only option left. Japan was never going to surrender prior to the use of the nuke, and they were prepared to fight to the last man. It was a different mindset, one that would give the worst Muslim fanaticism today a run for its money. I can see, and even justify the use of nuclear weapons to end that war, but it did open Pandora's box. Now we have nuclear weapons spreading all over the face of the globe.

I do worry about a country like Iran getting the nuclear bomb. Pakistan has the bomb, and is offset by India. China has the nuke, but they are reliant upon the West now for their economy, and they would be committing economic suicide by nuking anyone. There are a number of powers possessing nuclear weapons that make me nervous as it is, and I certainly do not want to see them going to other countries who have proved to be antagonistic towards the US.

I worry about the future of the world more and more with each passing day. How do we fix the problem, so that we eliminate nuclear weapons, rather than expanding their presence throughout the world? Honestly, I don't know. I do think that stopping new access to these weapons has to be the first step. I see little good that comes from a country like Iran, whose leaders have been linked to terrorism, gaining access to nukes. (or, frankly, any good that comes from any country that doesn't currently have nukes becoming a nuclear power)

I'm impressed you remember that thread. Bravo.

I absolutely did say that. And I remember specifically saying that countries who don't pose a thread even if they are in the Middle East don't need to be confronted.

Even if they have nukes, it's still the same situation.

Let me explain this to you on a very basic level : Nukes to countries are what Michael Kor purses are to women; accessories and a symbol of social status.

That's it.

Why do you think nobody has launched any? All it shows is that you have scientific and military advantages that can useful on a global scale, and thus, a power house.

Why do you think countries are labeled third world?

Third world wasn't a recently used word to describe very poor countries. The term third world came from the Cold War, as which there was only TWO global powerhouse: Russia and the United states. Every other country was behind us, not even close.

Going off on a Tanget, my bad.

Anyway, social status, valuable to attend G20 summits and UN meetings.

Also, Iran's behind the scenes scheme of destroying America is a joke, the sole purpose is to maintain the great and moral United states over those oppressive terrorist in the name of Islam.

The reality is, there is no country that is a higher threat to use weapons of mass destruction than the United states. That's right, at the end of the day, WE are the worlds greatest threat.

Any country knows they won't lauch nukes on others because it guarantees the destruction of their own country. Except the United states. We've been fed this lie that the middl east is capable of using nukes. But the reality is, we spread this islamophobia stuff and thread it into middle eastern governments as if they are one in the same.

Think about it. Every war before these two that we were involved in, there was a country. A presidents face we can put to. Adolf Hitler WAS germany. Stalin WAS Russia. Suddam WAS Iraq(golf war).

How do you put a face to ideology? Osama is dead. He can't be used anymore. You need an active terrorist that is on Osama level. There isn't.

You can't fight ideology with bullets. You can't fight religion with soldiers. All you do is spread the legend of the idea more and more.

You do what parents do to kids who want too much attention: ignore them. Isolate them in their own regions(the Middle East) and leave them there. Leave them to their own devices. I say it time and time again, Muslims in the Middle East have to be ruled with an iron fist, or their nonsense will spread to the rest of us.

And look what has happened.


Anyway, the only way nukes are going to be launch is if one of these terrorist groups get a hold of one. Official government won't let that happen. Nobody wants to be responsible for the destruction of their own people.

I'll read all this I wrote tomorrow when Im sober.

It's a fact. Well other than the we're the good guys part. That's subjective. I believe we're generally well intentioned, but we sure seem to only be able to think short term when it comes to foreign policy.

The fact is, we tell everyone not to use them, but have a huge arsenal and are the only country to have ever used them. We used them twice. Was it right or wrong to have used them? I generally think it was the right call in that situation, but would never ever use them again as a pre-emptive measure, which we really can't because enough people would retaliate to make it a global catastrophe.

Do I want Iran to have nukes? No. Do I understand why they want them? Yes. It's a sure fire way to keep the US out of their business.

That's why I said the stuxnet virus was ingenuous. If you don't know what it is/was read about it.

Arab governments reportedly concerned about terms of Iran nuke talks

Published February 21, 2015The Wall Street Journal


Arab governments are privately expressing their concern to Washington about the emerging terms of a potential deal aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear program, according to Arab and U.S. officials involved in the deliberations.

The direction of U.S. diplomacy with Tehran has added fuel to fears in some Arab states of a nuclear-arms race in the region, as well as reviving talk about possibly extending a U.S. nuclear umbrella to Middle East allies to counter any Iranian threat.

The major Sunni states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, have said that a final agreement could allow Shiite-dominated Iran, their regional rival, to keep the technologies needed to produce nuclear weapons, according to these officials, while removing many of the sanctions that have crippled its economy in recent years.

'At this stage, we prefer a collapse of the diplomatic process to a bad deal,'
- Arab official
Arab officials said a deal would likely drive Saudi Arabia, for one, to try to quickly match Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

"At this stage, we prefer a collapse of the diplomatic process to a bad deal," said an Arab official who has discussed Iran with the Obama administration and Saudi Arabia in recent weeks.

The Obama administration initially said its policy was to completely dismantle Tehran's nuclear infrastructure as a means to protect Washington's Mideast allies.

Now, however, U.S. officials say it is no longer plausible to eliminate all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, suggesting that any final deal would leave some nuclear capability in place. Iran denies that it is seeking to build a nuclear bomb, but a final deal providing for nuclear enrichment capacity could prompt a competition.

Arab officials have increasingly spoken about a possible nuclear arms race in the Mideast as the negotiations have continued for 18 months, having been extended twice.

U.S. officials have declined to publicly disclose terms of the deal being negotiated with Iran. But they stress that they have closely consulted with Washington’s Arab allies about the diplomatic process.

The Obama administration believes an agreement with Iran will curtail the potential for a nuclear arms race in the Mideast, rather than fuel one.

"Only a good negotiated solution will result in long-term confidence that Iran won't acquire a nuclear weapon," a senior U.S. official said. "Given Iran already has the technical capability, our goal has always been to get to one-year breakout time and cut off the four pathways under a very constrained program."

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/02/21/...ran-nuke-talks/

I sure hope this administration doesn't drop the ball on this one like they did on...

Syria
Lebanon
Egypt
Yemen
Iraq

ok. and?

And, so as the article said, no deal is better than a bad deal.

not really, i've already laid out on another thread that yall chose to ignore, yet again, on why iran having nukes poises no threat to anyone.