User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 74

  1. #21
    Feline Member kelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    2,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    It feels good to write about politics again.
    Welcome back, Disco

    Although I'm wondering if I'm not dreaming -- We're usually on the (exact) opposite ends of every political discussion I've seen here in the last few years. And yet, I agree with absolutely everything you've said here .

    Well said.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  2. #22
    ... Tyrinth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    649 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    1,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Before I say anything else, I don't think the emergence of a Nuclear Iran warrants a preemptive strike.

    Iran doesn't have the capabilities, or in my estimation the inclination, to utilize a nuclear weapon against the US conventionally. They don't have an ICBM, they don't have a stealth plane capable of penetrating our airspace, and they don't have a military capable of doing anything to us on US soil.

    To justify a preemptive strike with the argument that a nuclear Iran threatens domestic US safety is ridiculous.

    The question then becomes "Could Iran, through guerrilla (read terrorist) means, get a nuclear weapon into the US and detonate it?"

    My answer is yes. But they have no inclination to do so, as international (or just US) reaction to such an act would erase Iran from the memory of Human Civilization.

    The real question is whether the creation of a Nuclear Iran would prompt a preemptive strike from Israel.

    While the ongoing antagonism between Israel and Iran is of no benefit to either nation in real terms, the ethnic opposition between these two peoples is so deeply ingrained that it counts as a crucial element of foreign policy (to the public of each nation at least).

    Whether or not there will be bloodshed between Israel and Iran over the development of Iranian nuclear weapons is a harder question to answer than whether or not the US will strike preemptively. Given the international treaties involved, such aggressive action between Israel and Iran would force America's hand in the matter. Taking into consideration the relative regional positions of Israel and Iran, I don't think Israel will preemptively strike.

    The unintended consequences of such action are understood by all parties involved, and no one wants WWIII on top of whatever percentage of the world's oil supply Iran can still lay claim to.

    As dangerous as it is to rely on the fact that you will turn into radioactive glass, any country that dares to use nuclear weapons against you, it's worked so far. The development of nuclear weapons by Iran is as much (if not more) about gaining parity in international negotiations, and sitting at the adult's table in the UN, as it is about the actual tactical and strategic value of having such weapons.

    Moving forward, our (read USA) focus needs to be on how to move through this process of allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons, without actually looking like we've allowed them to do it (in order to save face politically at home, and diplomatically on the international stage). We need to publicly oppose their development of these weapons, while concurrently understanding that this development is almost an inevitability at this point (barring violent preemption). Our greatest focus needs to be on containing an Israel that is, no doubt, chomping at the bit, to start a hot war with Iran over this.

    Should we manage this herculean feet of containing Israel's preemptive inclinations, we won't have anything to worry about, besides an Iran with a slightly better bargaining position internationally.

    It feels good to write about politics again.
    Wow, amazing post.

    I basically agree that it is inevitable that Iran will end up with a nuclear weapon, but should we do all we can to delay it rather than helping them secretly?

    I mean, right now the middle east is a powder keg, and it seems like the last thing we need in that powder keg is more nuclear weapons.

    Do you think it would be a good idea, or even be possible, to do all we can to delay the development of their nuclear program until there is at least the illusion of stability over there?
    ...

  3. #23
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Wow, amazing post.

    I basically agree that it is inevitable that Iran will end up with a nuclear weapon, but should we do all we can to delay it rather than helping them secretly?

    I mean, right now the middle east is a powder keg, and it seems like the last thing we need in that powder keg is more nuclear weapons.

    Do you think it would be a good idea, or even be possible, to do all we can to delay the development of their nuclear program until there is at least the illusion of stability over there?
    The middle east is a powder keg.

    But whats more liable to set it off?

    The US (or Israel) preemptively striking Iran.

    Or Iran developing a Nuclear weapon, then against all logic, deciding to use it against the west.

    The preemptive strike will certainly set it off.

    The nuclear weapon will only set it off, if Iran decides to use it, which they wont.

  4. #24
    ... Tyrinth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    649 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    1,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The middle east is a powder keg.

    But whats more liable to set it off?

    The US (or Israel) preemptively striking Iran.

    Or Iran developing a Nuclear weapon, then against all logic, deciding to use it against the west.

    The preemptive strike will certainly set it off.

    The nuclear weapon will only set it off, if Iran decides to use it, which they wont.
    That isn't my point. I don't think we should preemptively strike. Nor do I think they will strike the west.

    But why are you so sure they won't use a nuclear weapon at all? I'm thinking Israel is in the cross hairs.
    ...

  5. #25
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Because the US would erase Iran from the map if they did so.

    Mutually assured destruction is a hell of a thing (although Iran does not have the nuclear capability to destroy the US, the analogy still holds water).

  6. #26
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536

    Default

    I think the worst case scenario is Pakistan. They already have nuclear weapons and to conceal their location from their enemy India they transport them around Pakistan in trucks.

    At the same time nuclear weapons are being carried around Pakistan in trucks, militant Islam is growing and growing in Pakistan. And how easy it would be to highjack a truck.

    And as the hatred of the West is growing and growing in Pakistan, how simple it would be to take a nuclear weapon to the top of a tall building in a large Western city and detonate it at lunchtime, causing a firestorm burning at 1,100 degrees, killing every living thing in the city.

  7. #27
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    ^ Excellent point (bringing up Pakistan, not how simple it would be for a nuke to escape Pakistan).

    The fact that Pakistan, current safe harbor for terrorists, has had the nuke as long it has (since 98) and we haven't seen any nuclear action against the US (be it terrorist or sovereign), means that either the Pakistani's or their AQ buddies are unwilling/unable to use nukes against us, or our military (and Federal Agencies) is doing a damn fine job of preventing such attacks.

    I suspect it is a combination of both.

    Therefore, I can't see any reason why we are supposed to be as afraid as the MSM would have you believe you should be.

    Nothing happened in '98 when Pakistan got the bomb, or post '01 when fundamentalist Islam reared its ugly head.

    We live in an incredibly safe place compared to the Middle East, and much of the rest of the world, we have no great reason to fear this new development (which is the first of many as 2nd and 3rd world nations advance technologically).

    It amazes me sometimes that more people don't see foreign policy and the international situation the way I do.
    Last edited by DiscoBiscuit; 02-17-2012 at 03:04 PM.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    868

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The middle east is a powder keg.

    But whats more liable to set it off?

    The US (or Israel) preemptively striking Iran.

    Or Iran developing a Nuclear weapon, then against all logic, deciding to use it against the west.

    The preemptive strike will certainly set it off.

    The nuclear weapon will only set it off, if Iran decides to use it, which they wont.
    Um... they will, though.... know why? Because they're FUCKING CRAZY. Newsflash: They don't care if they die - they regularly use suicide bombers. Ahmadinejad has already SPOKEN about this possibility. I think I'm going to go with what he's, you know, ACTUALLY SAYING. For the chance to wipe out Israel or seriously maim America? They'd let half their people get wiped out in a retaliatory attack without batting an eye. Collateral damage, no problem. Hell, they're doing them a favor. 72 virgins for everybody!

  9. #29
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mia_infp View Post
    Um... they will, though.... know why? Because they're FUCKING CRAZY. Newsflash: They don't care if they die - they regularly use suicide bombers. Ahmadinejad has already SPOKEN about this possibility. I think I'm going to go with what he's, you know, ACTUALLY SAYING. For the chance to wipe out Israel or seriously maim America? They'd let half their people get wiped out in a retaliatory attack without batting an eye. Collateral damage, no problem. Hell, they're doing them a favor. 72 virgins for everybody!
    On the other hand, we thought Saddam Hussein had WMD's in large part on account of what he told his own generals; words from Middle East dictators (or their puppets) on such matters are not always to be trusted.* Plenty of Iranians have messianic fantasies (which such speeches appeal to), but I'm not convinced the people who are actually in charge (the clerical hierarchy) are quite that deranged....and I'm not willing to pay the costs of pre-emptive war on that chance, as I think that would have even worse consequences than a nuclear-armed Iran.

    That said, I'm perfectly happy allowing Israel to continue to engage in a little productive espionage (Iran's words and actions are more than sufficient provocation).

    *I certainly believe that Iran is developing Nuclear Weapons, its the suicidal intentions of the leadership I have doubts about.

  10. #30
    Crazy Diamond Billy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrinth View Post
    not even the United States (Dispite what so many seem to claim, we do have international laws we must abide by). So if they don't follow international nuclear regulations, it really doesn't matter. Sovereign nation or not, there are some things the world doesn't want to see countries doing.
    You mean like bombing 2 Japanese cities with nukes? Or flying raids into another country and blowing up their buildings? Or starting wars to control how other countries live? We have no right to push our ways onto others, Iran wants a nuke because Israel and the US have been fucking them for years.
    Ground control to Major Tom

Similar Threads

  1. Exposure to "worst case scenario" very effective in treating social anxiety
    By Olm the Water King in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-01-2016, 09:17 PM
  2. TypeC members, nuclear weapons and matter of trust
    By Virtual ghost in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-15-2015, 01:02 PM
  3. US intel: No evidence of Viagra as weapon in Libya
    By Sniffles in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-01-2011, 10:08 PM
  4. Have you ever used a weapon in self-defence?
    By Dali in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 88
    Last Post: 03-11-2010, 04:58 PM
  5. In the case you are living in a tribe some 10000 years ago .....
    By Virtual ghost in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 01-28-2010, 02:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO