Soldato
Bomb Iran?
- Thread starter The Halk
- Start date
"Oppressing them for years"? How, exactly? And what time period are we talking about here?
Obviously we shouldn't bomb Iran. That would be pointless, dangerous and entirely counter-productive. It would be like hanging out a huge "WELCOME" mat to every Muslim with a half-baked grudge against the West and asking them if they'd like to pop into the country to blow a few things up on the weekend.
Iran should be dealt with via the UN.
We've forced them not to develop nuclear weapons for nobodies good but our own. I'm just saying it's what it is.
What if Iran cannot be dealt with by the UN? What if the UN is so ineffective that they just put a few sanctions on them and it doesn't stop them developing nuclear weapons? I'm of the opinion that we will know reasonably soon if they are trying to develop nuclear weapons. More power to the UN if it states that they either drop the programme to our satisfaction or they'll get bombed... But I don't think they will.
If they don't, and it's a choice between us sending in strike bombers or Iran having nukes, do you bomb or not?
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,487
Well no-one bombed North Korea for having nukes so...
Soldato
F
Why? Because this type of problem is suppose to be dealt with using spies or special forces teams which no-one will ever hear about except a random explosion in a factory.
Last edited:
they dont have any do they ?
Bomb Hamilton, it may stop threads like these 
Even if and it's a big if Iran did develop Nuclear weapons capable of long distances, they are extremely unlikely to use them. Israel has one of the largest stocks in the world and with their history are in my mind much more likely to use one (still unlikely).
What about Pakistan, India?
You can not police the world, we should stop trying.
Even if and it's a big if Iran did develop Nuclear weapons capable of long distances, they are extremely unlikely to use them. Israel has one of the largest stocks in the world and with their history are in my mind much more likely to use one (still unlikely).
What about Pakistan, India?
You can not police the world, we should stop trying.
Caporegime
We already have trade deals with them. We've been trading with them for more than 100 years.
No, we haven't forced them to do anything. Nor have we forced them not to do anything. They have continued to develop their nuclear program without Western interference. Iran actually denies that she is developing nuclear weapons (which might be a lie, and probably is) but the West has not stopped her from doing so.
And LOL at Iran's latest claim: "It wasn't a secret nuclear plant; we just deliberately didn't tell you about it".
Currently, Iran does not have an official nuclear weapons program, so there is nothing to officially stop. I think people should prove the existence of a program before they talk about how we should be stopping it.
Remember Iraq? The UK and USA talked up a storm about Iraq's alleged WMD, but even after they'd invade the country and kicked nine kinds of hell out of it, no WMD were found because it turned out that when the Iraqis had said "We are no longer developing WMD", they were actually telling the truth.
I don't think we should send in strike bombers even if Iran does develop nuclear weapons. Why would we send in strike bombers just because Iran has nuclear weapons? What would be the point of that? And where's the justification?
Unfortunately... yes. North Korea does have nuclear weapons. But we're probably safe until Kim Jong-Il has a bad curry night and decides to take it out on the rest of the world.
Soldato
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,487
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
The difference between North Korea and Iran is that North Korea is claiming to have nukes and probably does have them unlike Iran which does not.
I think we've been reasonably successful in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons - just as long as we avoid ground wars.
If you bomb Hamilton we will respond in kind. The People's Republic of Hamilton is proud to announce we have nuclear weapons of our own.
You may be right, it's a hard one to judge as to create a truly global nuclear threat is not easy and requires some big brains/money/resources. Not many countries have the facilities to develop them.
Even though I’d prefer more countries did not obtain them, I do find it quite hard to understand how we can really justify simply banning any country from having them. The only way to do this fairly would be for global disarmament, which, as we all know is never going to happen in our lifetimes (nor should it)
We've justified it in the past by claiming we're headed for nuclear disarmament. I started another thread elsewhere where it became pretty clear that nuclear disarmament isn't desirable - well, it is for eveyrbody else apart from us.
Really it just is bullying other nations for the greater good, and we have to make peace with our own consciences that it is indeed the right thing to do.
Man of Honour
If and when they make them they cannot do a great deal with them, I would imagine they want them as a security blanket so western powers dont invade like they did with Iraq. I would guess they are shooting themselves in the foot as their two biggest backers China and Russia are going to tell them to take a hike if they announce they have nukes, both China and Russia do a lot of business that keeps Iran even though an ousider state pretty affluent.
As for terror groups getting hold of any nukes developed, Osama and friends are the wrong side of the muslim tracks to want to deal with Iran, Osama and friends being Sunni and Iran being Shi'a. That aside everyone can probably guess that the USA will push for a terrorist angle.
As for terror groups getting hold of any nukes developed, Osama and friends are the wrong side of the muslim tracks to want to deal with Iran, Osama and friends being Sunni and Iran being Shi'a. That aside everyone can probably guess that the USA will push for a terrorist angle.
Or how about:
G) Mind our own ******* business and live and let live? Who the **** are we to dictate to anyone that they can or cannot have nuclear weapons?
The US can go **** itself too - arrogant *******!
* There, I feel so much better
i vote this.
Same way you ban a child from playign with fire.
Or how about:
G) Mind our own ******* business and live and let live? Who the **** are we to dictate to anyone that they can or cannot have nuclear weapons?
The US can go **** itself too - arrogant *******!
* There, I feel so much better
+1
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,487
Exactly.
Also, Western countries regularly show off the benefits of having nukes so its little wonder when other nations look at us and then decide to build some for themselves.
Yep, and that's why our carrot/stick diplomacy with them has to be handled very well.
I'm now starting to think that we have already mishandled this new Iran "crisis".
From what I understand Iran has come forward and stated they have a not yet operational facility.
Obama, Brown, Sarkozy are apparently going to announce this is terrible and they must co-operate or face sanctions.
Then the Iranian leader comes on telly (link - notice the interviewer says - A), 2). Heh amateur!". The Iranian leader indicates they haven't actually done anything wrong.
The BBC reports that Iran says they have to report 180 days in advance of any facility handing nuclear materials, which they are doing.
So perhaps Obama, Brown, Sarkozy are too fast off the mark and Iran really is towing the line.
Frankly I don't know anywhere near enough to know what's right or not. On the face of it Ahmadinejad doesn't look under pressure, and his body language suggests honesty, and confidence.
Sadly if that happens then at absolute best we will have multiple nuclear warheads used, and the impact that has on the millions or billions of lives lost.
At worst it'll lead to nuclear winter and the death of the vast majority of the population, and send humanity back to the stone age on a ruined planet.