So what does the WORLD do with Iran upping the nuclear stakes?

[Trojan_Ripper]

Iran pressed ahead Monday with plans that will increase its ability to make nuclear weapons as it formally informed the U.N. nuclear agency of its intention to enrich uranium to higher levels.

Alarmed world powers questioned the rationale behind the move and warned the country it could face more U.N. sanctions if it made good on its intentions.

Iran maintains its nuclear activities are peaceful, and an envoy insisted the move was meant only to provide fuel for Tehran's research reactor. But world powers fearing that Iran's enrichment program might be a cover for a weapons program were critical....

Iran moves closer to nuke warhead capacity - Yahoo! News

[lukas8u]

Why is it wrong to let Iran have Nukes?










(Runs away in terror after igniting the TNT)

And yes that was serious.

[ncb1397]

Why is it wrong to let Iran have Nukes?

Why is right? What good does it do? What harm does it do?

[lukas8u]

Well that's what I meant.
Basically, why is it ok that we do, and they don't?
Sounds like we're playing the game a bit unfair.

[Yarn]

So what does the WORLD do with Iran upping the nuclear stakes?

Nothing decisive. Probably.

We could bomb them, which in turn would incur a variety of different costs, not the least of which would be defending against their response when we have so many troops committed to adjacent areas. In turn, the region's oil flows could be vastly reduced by the conflict thereby endangering the global economy. Another cost would be an inflammation of anti-American sentiment, which is what caused this debacle to begin with (what goes around comes around)...So since the only decisive response would incur a great cost, we won't commit to it. If we had a hawk as president, things might be different, though Bush was reluctant to do anything decisive, but then we would also be in an entirely unnecessary cold war with Russia, as opposed to warming them up to the idea of sanctions.

Since China won't commit to sanctions, their strength is limited and probably close to its limit already (though Russia could add to them).

A wild card is the green movement, but they don't have guns, and the regime, apparently, has a firmly loyal army.

[mbc85]

Hopefully nothing. We have nukes, so in case iran decides to "mistakenly" launch one this way, we could launch one hundred that way (not that they r necessary). Iran wants to have a better hand in this US run poker game and they are gonna go thru with it no matter what, they have a nice position on the table and they are gonna at least "call" our "raise".

[ncb1397]

Yeah, we should let every country have nukes. That way, when their government is about to be overthrown.... We must step in, invade the country, secure the nuclear stockpiles and occupy the country tell it settles down.

How is this a recipe for anti-interventionist policies

[mbc85]

Well it's our own fault for inventing them now we have to fix everything. And what makes you believe we won't have that happening in the US?

[ncb1397]

Well it's our own fault for inventing them now we have to fix everything. And what makes you believe we won't have that happening in the US?

There has never been a successful revolution against the U.S. government. The Confederacy failed.

I can not say the same for Iran. I can count two revolutions off the top of my head in recent history (living memory).

Considering the recent protests, a nuclear armed Iran would simply be an unstable government with potentially only a super powerful boom boom stick to defend itself.

Instability + Nuclear Weapons = Bad

Let me also add that two countries with nuclear weapons have gone to war directly and that Israel planned to use them in I believe the 6 day war if they were on the verge of defeat. There are enough governments on the hair trigger as it is.

[mbc85]

That might be true but it doesn't take away the possibility of it.

I am strictly against neclear weapons. But we can't be doing santcions on an already turbulent country because they are following our lead. We are just gonna make it worse.

Don't you think?

[ncb1397]

That might be true but it doesn't take away the possibility of it.

You have two options. Push button A and there is a 3% chance that you will get ran over by a car. Push button B and there is a 30% chance that you will get ran over by a car. Which button do you choose?

I am strictly against neclear weapons. But we can't be doing santcions on an already turbulent country because they are following our lead. We are just gonna make it worse.

Right now, the cat is only half way out of the bag. Great Brittian, France, Israel, China, Russia, Pakistan, India, North Korea and the U.S. have nuclear weapons. That is 9 countries. There are roughly 190 countries or so in the world. That equates to 5% with nuclear weapons. Once the cat escapes from the bag completely, there is no way to get it back in.

[mbc85]

I know that, hence my hate over the NW, but if an overthrown government in iran is a problem, so is in russia, israel and probably nk. Right?

A Nuclear weapon might have ended a war and saved lives temporarly, but it sure has put the whole world in danger.

[rmnunez]

The reason it is more wrong for Iran to have nukes is that this country's leadership is in the hands of Islamic fanatics, they do not appear to be that sensible or reasonable, the regime has frequently made very offensive statements to other countries and has threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

[mbc85]

I understand that too but korea is as crazy as they (iran) are and nothing has happened..... yet. that's what I meant when I said in another thread "I hope we don't go getting "real" countries mad", meanins china, nk, iran, and maaaaybe russia. Out of the countries that have nuclear weapons we have bad relations with most of them, why don't we try talking them out of nuclear weapons by compromising, we get rid of them you do the same. Not that we ever are gonna get rid of them, the US has to be the big bad wolf in this world.

Btw nunez the same thing that we think iran will do, they think the we will do the same, and with good reason.

[rmnunez]

I don't think the Iranians anticipate the US will nuke them, nor do they have any reason to expect this.

North Korea is also led by an irrational actor but its easier to hold in check because they need outside help more.

Other nuclear powers are more 'mature', they've proven themselves capable of tempering their option to resort to nuclear force, it is not at all evident Iran has this maturity.

Iran's leadership is religiously charged and their faith is outcast in the region, this makes them more likely to feel compelled to resort to nuclear force,

[mbc85]

Yeah they are very religion based uver there. I don't want them having nukes, but if they do end up having it I don't want the US to do anything about it. Iran knows we can delete them from this planet so I think that will keep iran in check.

I just hope we don't go to war over iran having nukes. We seem to be going to war over the wrong reasons lately.

[GuidoNius]

Quote by: mbc85 I just hope we don't go to war over iran having nukes. We seem to be going to war over the wrong reasons lately.

As long as the military-industrial complex can lobby Congress there will always be a wrong reason to have a war. Whatever Iran does - and it will do crazy things - there will be a Cheney and a Palin shouting to invade & calling anybody with another opinion unpatriotically unAmerican faggots or something.

[Questatement]

The nuke-game has changed since the US - USSR mutual-deterrence dynamic. No longer does it take multiple nukes to win a nuclear war, giving your opponent time to counter with an equal or better nuclear attack - resulting in no real winner. Technology dependent countries (the US reigning supreme) need only one high-altitude nuclear detonation to bring about an EMP paralysis. The last US, JOB report estimated that 90% of the US population would die within a year after a single, well-placed nuke without further/future military aggression against us.

Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack

What is different now is that some potential sources of EMP threats are difficult to deter—they can be terrorist groups that have no state identity, have only one or a few weapons, and are motivated to attack the US without regard for their own safety. Rogue states, such as North Korea and Iran, may also be developing the capability to pose an EMP threat to the United States, and may also be unpredictable and difficult to deter.

Does Iran 'deserve' nukes? Based on the new rules of the game, I'd say no.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Questatement The nuke-game has changed since the US - USSR mutual-deterrence dynamic. No longer does it take multiple nukes to win a nuclear war, giving your opponent time to counter with an equal or better nuclear attack - resulting in no real winner.

The good news:
Nukes prevent any one superpower from taking over the world. Unfortunately, though, they let every nuclear power take a slice of the world.

Grandpa h.

[Questatement]

When the US was the sole possessor of nuclear weapons, what prevented us from "taking over the world?"