Why Iran needs nukes.

[Drake Dun]

More proof of why Iran does need nukes.

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...te-cnn-partner

Imagine that you live in a country which has been designated as a member of an "axis of evil" by the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, a country which far outclasses you in economic and military power. Imagine further that this country has a long, inglorious history of covertly (and occasionally, overtly) overthrowing popular, often democratically elected governments in order to further its own economic interests. One of these coups was in your own country - in the not too distant past. Recently, the same country invaded your next door neighbor on the most transparent pretext, a pretext which was known to be a barefaced lie even before the first bomb fell.

Most recently, you discover (almost inevitably), that this country is instituting yet another covert operation against your country, "a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of [your country's] currency and international financial transactions" by their own wording. Then somebody tries to tell you that your country has no reason to want nukes.

Where do these comedians get off?

Drake

[Vako]

I entirely hate that I agree with that, but I do. In an ideal pollyanish hippie-world, no one should have nuclear weapons. But lets face reality. Weaponry creates a "balance of power". For the fact that the U.S. government, in its typical Judeo-Christian arrogance, believes it is "God's gift to the world", I don't actually blame other nations, faiths, and cultures for wanting to join the "nuclear Klub".

Now if they decide to actually use them against my nation, that's a whole other story...

[Mir]

The situation in the region is so volatile that anyone could be excused for not wanting another country to join the nuclear club. However, if one country in that region has nuclear weapons, others should too. Bearing such weapons responsibly is the key factor. But I don't see how Israel would be anymore responsible with nuclear weapons than Iran would be seeing how they kill civilians everyday. I'm sure they knock off a few Hamas agents here and there but its mostly the civilians that suffer.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Iran doesn't need nukes.
Whales need nukes.

Anyway, I do understand the reasoning of this. I would say I agree, but I can't take anything seriously if it says 'axis of evil'. I just don't go beyond that and start laughing.
Axis of Evil.
Sounds like Bush was watching the Justice League.

[Splintered]

It's occured to me that nukes won't help Iran.

Think about it. The only other time in the history of warfare where nuclear weapons were used, was World War II. Then, it was completely justified at the horrible Japanese, and no one had enough feedback to know any different until it was too late.

Iran uses a nuke, and it will piss of every other country on the planet. Iran uses a nuke, and it'll piss of a lot of it's own citizens. Iran uses a nuke, and it'll get the shit smacked out of it by the US. By raw number of nukes, it can only be a bluff to even think about using them.

[Binkie]

The problem with podunk nations having nuclear weapons is 1.) they ignite arms races with other podunk nations that don't need and shouldn't have them, 2.) it's extremely counter productive to Global Non-Proliferation efforts, and 3.) rogue nations in particular that have them for "defense" generally don't have much care for setting of a nuclear holocaust for whatever reason if threatened.

Iran may have a right to nuclear power, but not a nuclear weapon. Not while being a signitory to the NNPT.

Israel isn't going to drop a massive city-flattening nuke on Tehran anytime soon. If they do employ smaller nuclear bombs on certain plants inside Iran, it'll be by that same, flawed "Defense" mentality. Now would that be justified if the Islamic Republic is indeed working towards a weapon? They'd certainly say yes and point towards statements made publicly about wiping Israel off the map completely. That doesn't sound so "defensive" from the standpoint of a country who has been threatened and outnumbered for over half a decade by nations that would indeed like to follow through on such an attack.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Binkie

The problem with podunk nations having nuclear weapons is 1.) they ignite arms races with other podunk nations that don't need and shouldn't have them, 2.) it's extremely counter productive to Global Non-Proliferation efforts, and 3.) rogue nations in particular that have them for "defense" generally don't have much care for setting of a nuclear holocaust for whatever reason if threatened.

Judging from history, all of those are equally true of the U.S., or China, or anybody you please. If these countries are less likely to press the button, it's only because at the moment, the need to do so seems further away.

Iran may have a right to nuclear power, but not a nuclear weapon. Not while being a signitory to the NNPT.

A masterpiece of equity. "All you weenies who don't have nukes, you're not allowed to get them. The rest of us can do whatever we want, except that we all agree not to give you bozos jack shit. Oh, and we agree to think about agreeing that we should agree to do something about the nukes that we have... sometime in the future. Maybe. Suckers."

Israel... [would] point towards statements made publicly about wiping Israel off the map completely. That doesn't sound so "defensive" from the standpoint of a country who has been threatened and outnumbered for over half a decade by nations that would indeed like to follow through on such an attack.

Granted. If Iran needs nukes, Israel needs them even more - especially if Iran already has them. That's the whole problem. Escalation. The point I am trying to make is that if escalation and hence nuclear proliferation are ever to be avoided, ameliorated, or reversed, the countries that have enough emotional space (if you will) - i.e., the wealthy and well armed ones, are where it will need to start.

Right now it just sounds like a bad joke when Bush's cronies get up and denounce Iran for developing nukes. The U.S. is like a parent who screams "if you ever even touch cigarettes, I'll break your fucking arm!" while puffing furiously away on the last cigarette of its second pack of the day.

Drake

[dark_dragon_of_ice]

Nukes make a great bargaining token.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by dark_dragon_of_ice

Nukes make a great bargaining token.

Definitely. It always works for me.

EER!! I mean, yeah, I imagine they would. You know, when like, diplomats and cool guys like that from countries and stuff get together.

Drake

[mansarin]

Drake, I've been longing to see this on the net for some time now! I needed that smile.

Iran needs nukes to keep the US on a bark basis. I mean to make sure that the US just keeps on threatening (SP?) and doesn't really attack the Republic (I love calling Iran that; It's anything but a Republic we're living in), Because that might create world war III.

And anyway, for all I care, Iran Nuclear (For owners of nokia, I've got a real nice theme for that) Means extra battlefield 2 maps.

Joy.

SJ

P.s: drake, where exactly are you from?

[Raptor]

I can see where Iran wants nukes as a deterrent. But I don't think any countries should be arming, yes thats unfair when some places do already own nukes. It would be good if those countries would disarm too, but its not going to happen.

I don't trust Iran to have nuclear weapons after the Israel must be "wiped off the map" thing. Also how tight would their security be? Though I do realise that nuclear materials go missing in other countries as well.

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

Judging from history, all of those are equally true of the U.S., or China, or anybody you please.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, or the UAE doesn't need nuclear weapons because the major powers have them. South Africa didn't need nuclear weapons because of the major powers. Pakistan didn't need nuclear weapons because the US, China, or former Soviet Union had them. Most of these "podunk" nations built up nuclear arsenals due to their podunk rivalries with other nations. Pakistan vs. India, Arab nations vs. Iran, Iran vs. Israel, Israel vs. entire Middle East, etc. South Africa was unique in that it needed them for itself.

About the only podunk country that has developed a nuclear weapons program because of us is North Korea, and even then it wasn't a successful program.

If these countries are less likely to press the button, it's only because at the moment, the need to do so seems further away.

Point three is more about being overwhelmed by superpowers and large-scale military invasions to which rogue nations stand no chance. China, Russia, the US, France, and UK are pretty safe, in that they belong to large military alliances for which they can draw upon in the time of war. A country with little to no backing that goes it alone will be hitting "the button" a lot quicker.

Of course, the threat does not lie only in usage, but in being handed out. Countries that collapse due to internal or external reasons don't generally keep track of their WMDs. US troops and Iraqis know this more than anyone.

A masterpiece of equity. "All you weenies who don't have nukes, you're not allowed to get them. The rest of us can do whatever we want, except that we all agree not to give you bozos jack shit. Oh, and we agree to think about agreeing that we should agree to do something about the nukes that we have... sometime in the future. Maybe. Suckers."

First off, the message is hardly aggressive or authoritative towards countries that voluntarily participate in this treaty. If someone is going to build nuclear weapons, all they have to do is withdraw or not sign. India and Pakistan obviously never went that route and both own nuclear weapons. India happens to be one of the loudest voices against the NNPT.

But getting back to it, Russia has gone from owning 45,000 nuclear warheads to somewhere in the ballpark now of 12,000. The US has gone from 33,000 to around 9,000. I'd say they're past the agreeing to agree stage.

Let's not forget South Africa, a signatory, having dismantled their entire (be it small) nuclear stockpiles. Libya, also a signatory, has agreed to dismantle it's own program.

Granted. If Iran needs nukes, Israel needs them even more - especially if Iran already has them. That's the whole problem. Escalation. The point I am trying to make is that if escalation and hence nuclear proliferation are ever to be avoided, ameliorated, or reversed, the countries that have enough emotional space (if you will) - i.e., the wealthy and well armed ones, are where it will need to start.

Right now it just sounds like a bad joke when Bush's cronies get up and denounce Iran for developing nukes. The U.S. is like a parent who screams "if you ever even touch cigarettes, I'll break your fucking arm!" while puffing furiously away on the last cigarette of its second pack of the day.

I wouldn't categorize a nicotine addicted parent who's a future lung cancer patient wanting to do good for their children a, "bad joke." But straying from the angst-riddled analogy, there are hundreds of reasons that Nuclear Proliferation is a bad thing.

Deterrence is a wonderful concept, but when everyone has a bomb, suddenly someone is going to test the bounds of another country's will-power to follow through. Let's not mention that many countries in say, the Middle East, are not exactly the most stable. Their prospects for longivity are poor and when the regimes finally come down and a bomb turns up missing, suddenly there are going to be greater problems than if Iran were to launch a nuclear warhead at Israel.

Aside from that, if the Ba'ath party of Iraq was unafraid to employ WMDs against foes over a mere border war, and would have dropped them on Israel durring the first Gulf War if capable, what will occur if these men or nations have thermonuclear bombs to drop in the future?

If Iran is truely developing nuclear weapons, then they should follow India's example. Otherwise they'd be using a voluntary treaty, inspections, and public rhetoric as a basis for deterrence of sanctions and military action. Makes their intentions look extremely suspect when they're just as clandestine as their program.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Binkie

Of course, the threat does not lie only in usage, but in being handed out. Countries that collapse due to internal or external reasons don't generally keep track of their WMDs. US troops and Iraqis know this more than anyone.

Well put, thats kind of what I was thinking about security. Though theres a chance of weapons going missing without a collapse.

[Cyntrox]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

Anyway, I do understand the reasoning of this. I would say I agree, but I can't take anything seriously if it says 'axis of evil'. I just don't go beyond that and start laughing.
Axis of Evil.
Sounds like Bush was watching the Justice League.

Yeah! I mean, really... Good vs evil? I left that concept when I was like, what, five?

[Binkie]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Well put, thats kind of what I was thinking about security. Though theres a chance of weapons going missing without a collapse.

Another good point.

It'd be interesting to see a warhead or other device show up in the hands of Hezbollah, HAMAS, Venezuala, or possibly worse - in the hands of Sudan. Sudan, of course, is a close military partner of Iran and widely adopts a scortch Earth policy towards rebels in Darfur. If it weren't for oil in that area, I'm sure they'd not bat an eyelash at wiping out large pockets of people. Same with the oil-rich south, which may be succeeding when a refferendum is held later this decade.

As has been shown here recently, not everything that happens in Iran's dirty foreign policy moves needs approval from the top.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Binkie

Venezuala

Venezuela?

[Binkie]

Much like the US has engaged in "nuke sharing" with smaller NATO countries, so too might Iran with a potential arsenal in Venesuala. Ahmadinejad and Chavez have been shaking hands every chance they get and blasting the US on security issues left and right. While it's mostly rhetoric that they're to cooperate militarily and on security issues, Chavez is just paranoid enough and Iran is provocative enough to bring a nuke or nukes into Venezuala in the same manner that Moscow did in Havana back in the 60s. That is in the hypothetical instance that Iran is actually pursuing thermonuclear weapons.

It would act in a similar manner to Venezuala's recent military build up and arms purchases; that lovely Cold-War concept of deterrence. It would certainly help Iran do what it has apparently been longing to do, which is establish itself as not only a regional power, but a global one as well. A smaller counterweight to the United States.

[Binkie]

Self-admittingly that's an extreme forecast, but one that isn't too far off base. Iran may want to have launch pads for their missiles that are capable of hitting the United States. They can't do that with their current technology in Tehran.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by mansarin

P.s: drake, where exactly are you from?

The U.S. Orange County, in California, to be more precise. I have been in Japan for years now but I am still a U.S. citizen and have no intention of naturalizing to Japan, although I expect to be here for at least a couple of years to come.

Drake

[Drake Dun]

I'm popping off to the gym before going to do some work, but I'll respond in detail when I get back. The responses have been excellent, especially those from Binkie, and have put some factoids into my analysis that I need to do homework on. I have this in mind, in particular:

Originally Posted by Binkie

But getting back to it, Russia has gone from owning 45,000 nuclear warheads to somewhere in the ballpark now of 12,000. The US has gone from 33,000 to around 9,000. I'd say they're past the agreeing to agree stage.

Let's not forget South Africa, a signatory, having dismantled their entire (be it small) nuclear stockpiles. Libya, also a signatory, has agreed to dismantle it's own program.

I had no idea about any of that. It's possible that I have been giving the powers that be short shrift.

The business about Iran being a signatory to the NNPT, and the contrast between their approach and that of India is also interesting.

OTOH it remains the case that Iran has every reason to expect invasion by force of conventional arms, so I don't see a lot of merit in the argument that they don't need nukes because other nations already have them.

Anyway, another response later.

Drake

[Vako]

I forgot about, no matter what country they are from, the people who will sell nuclear weapons, parts, or equipment to anyone who can afford for them. It does not matter which country it would be. Any nation, a poor one, a desperate one.

[bleedingheart344]

We could easily go off and give every country nukes due to the fact that countries need to be able to protect themselves. Because of the fact that we are unaware of their intentions, we just cannot do that. I personally think we should give them nukes, despite this statement. I am merely making the point of why they don't have nukes yet.

[Vako]

Remember though, that nuclear secrets have even been stolen from America. The more countries that have nukes, especially rogue countries who are desperate for profit, or who are against the West, will sell nuclear technology to anyone who is able to pay. They will do this regardless of the purchaser's ideology.

[Drake Dun]

Well, I did a little homework with the intention of either reaffirming or reforming my opinions on this matter, and discovered rather to my dismay that it's quite the can of worms. For example, certain things that I read convinced me to at least entertain the possibility that Iran is telling the truth when they say they are not trying to build nuclear weapons (in case you hadn't noticed, my natural pattern is to ascribe absolutely no faith to any statement of any government).

At this juncture I'm frankly not up to developing a substantially informed opinion, a process which I estimate would take at a bare minimum 20 or 30 hours. So I will confine my opinionation to the following rather abstract, but forcefully meant assertions:

1) Exhortations to disarmament require evidence of peaceful intent. Trust is bilateral.

2) Power does not give rise to priviledge. If anything, it gives rise to responsibility.

3) People do things for reasons, and to divide the world up into good and evil is to renounce both reason and hope.

Hmmm... that is some super-abstract bullshit. Let's take it at least one notch more specific: Lead by example, America.

Drake

[CptSternn]

I agree with the topic, and would like to add once again most people are ignoring the root cause of the issue at hand.

WHY does Iran need nukes? Why is it a nation half a world away which has never openly attacked another nation on the other side of the globe feel it needs such firepower to protect itself?

Maybe its because its neighbor was invaded and is currently occupied while the natural resources are being plundered?

I mean, a sure fire way to stop the current arms race is to sign a treaty of sorts. Of course, that would mean actually SPEAKING to one another, and one nation has made MULTIPLE offers while the other has a 'no contact' policy in place.

Seems this issue is being caused by one side more than the other. I don't remember Iran ever pouring billions into wrecking the U.S. economy. I don't remember reading about undercover operatives from Iran ever trying to start uprising in America.

However, we see this daily for quite some time now in Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Chile, Nicaragua , etc.

If a certain nation didn't try to constantly overthrow governments merely because those governments' current administrations didn't bend to the will of that said nation then places like Iran wouldn't have to create a nuke to protect themselves.

I find it ironic that trying to create strife and start an uprising is considered fair play by America, but at the same time they have a 'war on terrorism'. Ummm...what do you call a small group of people trying to over-throw the current government? Look it up