Iran Next?
RyoOhki
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
Join Date: 2003-01-26 Member: 12789Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">What will happen in the coming months?</div> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Australia was also attacked after the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency gave Iran, another member of US President George W.Bush's axis of evil, until October 31 to come clean on its nuclear weapons program.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clipped this out of the local news server. Interesting to say the least. It's fairly common knowledge that Iran has fired up their program to get nuclear capabilities, and now it seems a deadline of sorts has been given. Now the question must be: what will the response of the UN, the world, and in particular the US when this deadline ticks around? If Iran releases all details of it's nuclear program and says "Yes, we're making bombs kindly go away" how would the world respond? If Iran releases details that show it is not making weapons, will the world believe them? And possibly the most interesting question of all: if Iran doesn't release any details, what happens then?
This could be the next global flashpoint over the coming months. With US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran looks like a logical next target, given that it was named in the "Axis of Evil" and seems to be pursueing a goal of obtaining nuclear weaponry.
Discuss.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clipped this out of the local news server. Interesting to say the least. It's fairly common knowledge that Iran has fired up their program to get nuclear capabilities, and now it seems a deadline of sorts has been given. Now the question must be: what will the response of the UN, the world, and in particular the US when this deadline ticks around? If Iran releases all details of it's nuclear program and says "Yes, we're making bombs kindly go away" how would the world respond? If Iran releases details that show it is not making weapons, will the world believe them? And possibly the most interesting question of all: if Iran doesn't release any details, what happens then?
This could be the next global flashpoint over the coming months. With US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran looks like a logical next target, given that it was named in the "Axis of Evil" and seems to be pursueing a goal of obtaining nuclear weaponry.
Discuss.
Comments
Its funny their after the two weaker ones, and are letting Nkorea blackmail them. Props to them for standing up for themselves
this is only speculation but only time can tell
either
a) we'll pull out after a while (another year?), leaving the job unfinished, for political reasons (high loss of life)
b) we'll stay there until it's done. Which may take 2+ more years.
None of which should be happening. It should have been nearing the completion already.
We SHOULD have had everything needed for reconstruction lined up and ready to move right after the initial conflict was over. I heard in the news that we JUST NOW assigned someone to govern some aspect of the reconstruction (can't remember what it was) that should have been already underway earlier this year. We haven't even gotten the power back on line, and we made a point not to blow it up. The government contracted out the job to one company, with no option to use another, because that one company needed the work. Is it getting done? No.
Hell, as often as we've been "Nation Building" you'd think we were good at it. Guess not....
now day by day more soldiers are dying, and more people who welcomed the liberation are now getting REALLY ****.
But that's getting off topic.... I don't think we have the manpower to go into Iran unless we're done with Iraq. And we won't be anytime soon. We're experiencing manpower shortages already. Tank crews are getting out of their tanks and doing their own patrols with captured weapons. The soldiers who did the inital invasion haven't yet been releived. We have no one to relieve them... the national guard and reserve soldiers have been active for 2-3 years ongoing.
We dont have the manpower to go into korea until we're done with Iraq either.
so just wait for them to lob a nuke at us or an ally? thats why the Bush doctrine is taking care of Americas enemys now before they can become a theat. ironically i beleive this will create more enemies
I forgot what the name of this project was called, but it was something along the lines of the old Star Wars project, an anit-nuke defense system better than NORAD. Someone correct me please.
I forgot what the name of this project was called, but it was something along the lines of the old Star Wars project, an anit-nuke defense system better than NORAD. Someone correct me please. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are correct the US is working to create a national anti-ballistics shield. For what purpose they weren't inclined to say.
The mere fact that North Korea is blackmailing us suggests they aren't intending on using the nukes for anything but leverage, a country like Iran on the other hand probably wouldn't hesitate to use the weapons.
only one country has launched nukes with the intention of killing people. ever.
I prefer to think they only stand as leverage which is still a valid reason for the west to oppose eastern countries having them (we should all know how much the 'west' hates to give away anything to anyone)
only one country has launched nukes with the intention of killing people. ever.
I prefer to think they only stand as leverage which is still a valid reason for the west to oppose eastern countries having them (we should all know how much the 'west' hates to give away anything to anyone)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wrong, the US dropped the bomb as a way to end the war as quick as possible. yes it did kill japanese but it was used as a way to <i>save</i> american lives. by dropping the bomb an invasion of the home islands was never needed.
only one country has launched nukes with the intention of killing people. ever.
I prefer to think they only stand as leverage which is still a valid reason for the west to oppose eastern countries having them (we should all know how much the 'west' hates to give away anything to anyone)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
wrong, the US dropped the bomb as a way to end the war as quick as possible. yes it did kill japanese but it was used as a way to <i>save</i> american lives. by dropping the bomb an invasion of the home islands was never needed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If that was the case why didn't the drop the bomb in less populated, or not populated areas. They dropped them on two heavily populated <i>civilian</i> citizens. The empeoror said he was willing to let every citizen in his country die to stop America, they dropped 2 bombs to prove him wrong.
"So why shouldn't they have nukes?"
"Because they would kill everyone as soon as they would get one!"
"Why would they do that? Maybe it's just for defending since their neighbour countries have been attacked lately"
"Nooo! Not for defending! And even if it were for defending, it would be bad to let them have nukes because then we couldn't attack them...if we would want to attack them for some mysterious reason. It's good to keep all the options open"
"So you are opposing it so other countries couldn't defend themselves?
"Oh you got it all wrong. We don't want them to have nukes because they would kill <b>everyone</b>! We are there to help them"
"Why would they do that? They know they would get the whole worlds wrath on them if they would use their nukes"
"But those Iranians, they are mad! They want to kill everyone and they don't care for their own lives. Mad I tell you!"
"How do you figure that?"
"I once heard that those mid-eastern countries have brutal leaders that kill everyone. I'm sure this is not an exception"
"So how can they convince you that they don't want to harm anyone?"
"Well, for starters they could let our troops take over their cities and lay down their arms, give us the control of their oil-pumps, stop worshipping those pagan gods, let us decide for them on everything and kiss my butt"
"So hows that different from you taking over the country?"
"No casualties for us and I get a free butt-cleaning"
*Rolleyes*
a) just because we have used nuclear weapons in the past, does NOT mean that everyone should have them. That makes no sense- "Oh you can have nukes" "Why" "we killed people with them" "oh. ok, makes sense..."
*rolleyes*
As for WHY some countries shouldn't have them, I posted the reason on page 2 of the north korea thread. Read up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Too get back on topic, I dont think there will be another target. The Americans have bitten off more than they can chew, and when Bush gets voted out, then the policy shift from agressive to apologetic will mean no more invasions. Not that thats a good thing tho.... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty much summed it up. We're over-extended as it is, and after this is over many of the reservists/guards are getting out because they've got bills to pay and they don't have their old job anymore since they've been activated for 2-3 years at a time. The military only pays the difference for the first year.
I don't really think we're going to attack them, but Iran does scare me non the less. I think the last thing we need though is to attack them, and yet do nothing about N. Korea, it would convince people we are on some religious crusade, and personally I don't feel the need to attack either. I believe Iran is smarter then to use such a weapon.
Just as you claim america cannot tell people who can and cannot have nukes, you cannot tell america it can or cannot. However, america (and russia) especially has had the experience that comes with ownership of nuclear weapons. We knew just how bad it could get, and how close it could get to full exhange. We have a large, well guarded stockpile, with little chance (reletively) of a nuclear weapon being stolen or going missing.
North Korea is a country in a time of instability, and they don't have the level-headedness or responsibility that it takes to own nuclear weapons. They can't think clearly when they're starting to get desperate- as mentioned, they're aquiring nuclear weapons for leverage not for defense. The small stockpile they will likely try and build is difficult to protect, and any number of things could happen that will either a) force their hand, use it or lose it, or b) end up with some nukes "dissappearing" in the confusion thus ending up on the black market. A reletively high chance of a nuke being used or getting lost.
There is a difference, whether you choose to recognise it or not.
This is like you giving a child with a temper a gun, because who are we to say they cannot have one? We have guns, we're just as bad right? No, not right. The child is not ready and does not understand the danger or responsibility required to own one safely.
The number of nukes we have has dropped dramatically, although we will probably never get rid of them all together. South africa was the only nuclear power that decided to completely disarm.
they're aquiring nuclear weapons for leverage not for defense. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
leverage... you have to admit though that the leverage they would gain, is the same leverage that the US and other nuclear nations already lord over nations, particulary devolping countries.
the link between favourable outcomes of nearly all agreements and the ownership of nuclear devices cannot really be disputed.
On the other hand, North Korea, using it as leverage, would try to blackmail every country they can.
We don't. Not with nuclear weapons anyway.
but do you really consider that our power comes SOLEY from trading skills/ diplomacy?
its much more likely we are where we are because of the nukes!
my point is, every nation that has nukes, has nukes for leverage, even when that leverage is basically defence, the two arent seperate in that sense, 'dont attack us or youll all die' is both leverage and defence.
hence the leverage argument is not valid, or at least hypocritical.
Ask the other people who share your viewpoint, such as dread. We got where we were by no good underhanded exploitation of the plight of 3rd world countries' by our corporations, who keep them down in order to profit. At least thats how he explains it- Nukes need not even be a factor.
i guess insurance is a better word actually.
i guess insurance is a better word actually. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Holy crap.. corporations had a large part to play in how Iran got Nuclear Weapons? WOWIE! Learn something new every day I do.
Anyhow, the difference between Iran getting nukes and NK is that NK probably won't use them... whereas Iran is a country bed ridden with terrorists who will. Building nukes is an absolutly sure fire way to cause problems.
Now let me ask you this:
Why does Iran need nuclear weapons? No one is threatening them, or claims a want to destroy them.
And finnaly, keep in mind this:
The USA will always have nukes for as long as everyone else keeps trying to develop them.
Why does Iran need nuclear weapons? No one is threatening them, or claims a want to destroy them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
bush has his beady eyes on them, they should feel threatened, allthough thats a bit of a paradox tbh...
and dont be sarcastic <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
you know what i meant..
They have a reason to fear US. If Iran had nukes, USA wouldn't dare to attack and Iran would be safe. That sounds like a good reason for me. Of course USA says that they attack because Iran is trying to get nukes and 'kill everyone on the spot' and Iran says they try to get nukes to prevent USA from attacking so it's a evil circle.
And who decides which countries are 'responsible' enough to own nukes, and which are equivalent to children with a temper?
The countries that already have nukes and military power do. (Read: the US)
Their military strength gives them the ability to control and police other countries (As they have been doing for some time). And certainly the impression given is that the only way to prevent America from getting its hands into your affairs is to own nukes.
There are no good guys or bad guys in this situation, and i'm sure, roles reversed, any country who held absolute power over another country would not be too happy at the prospect of that country matching its power. Nukes make a great equilizer.