<!--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-->And who decides which countries are 'responsible' enough to own nukes, and which are equivalent to children with a temper?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
common sense? logic? past experience?
Everything I've said about north korea applies. If, in your opinion, it's a load of horse **** and anyone should be able to have nukes if they want them no matter what, so be it. I'm not trying to force the issue down your throat. But it does provide another viewpoint.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Sep 17 2003, 06:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Sep 17 2003, 06:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Sep 17 2003, 01:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Sep 17 2003, 01:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 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--> 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. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't really see your reasoning behind that. I don't believe they have a reason to fear us except for the fact that we are upset with them developing Nuclear weapons in an unstable country where they may be stolen.
<!--QuoteBegin--Xzilen+Sep 17 2003, 04:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Xzilen @ Sep 17 2003, 04:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Sep 17 2003, 06:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Sep 17 2003, 06:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Sep 17 2003, 01:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Sep 17 2003, 01:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 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--> 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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't really see your reasoning behind that. I don't believe they have a reason to fear us except for the fact that we are upset with them developing Nuclear weapons in an unstable country where they may be stolen. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> They wouldn't have probably resources to develope large quantities of nuclear weapons, so they will guard those few they have.
Besides it's much more easier to get nukes from Russia because they have them a lot and they don't have resources to guard all of them properly.
<!--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-->I don't believe they have a reason to fear us except for the fact that we are upset with them developing Nuclear weapons in an unstable country where they may be stolen. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well it would seem that the nuclear response of Iran occured after it was lumped in the "Axis of Evil". In any case though we seem to be getting a little worried for no reason. Yes, nuclear material in Iran could be stolen. It could also be stolen from China, Russia, the USA, France, India, Britian, Pakistan or Israel. We don't tell these nations to get rid of their weapons though. How is Iranian nuclear material more "vunerable"? Every nation guards it's nuclear material and weaponry very closely. Iran, having just started their program, would guard their nukes better than their gold. Then of course, there's the issue of once you have the bomb, what can you do with it? First you have to figure out how to blow it up. That's an issue in itself. Firstly a special code must be entered or the bomb won't detonate. Say you manage to get past that somehow. Now the bomb inside is equipped with equipment that calculates rate of descent, velocity etc. If the bomb isn't moving at the speeds that were programmed into it, no explosion. Which would mean a terrorist would have to get it on board an aircraft then drop it over an intended target at the correct height.
Sounds tough eh? What a terrorist is most likely to do is get hold of nuclear waste or radioactive material and scatter it over an area with an explosive device. A far out scenario is taking the processed plutonium or uranium from an nuclear warhead and building a whole new bomb around it. Which requires very precise machinery and the help of at least one highly skilled nuclear physicist, plus some quite compitant engineers. In other words unlikely to happen. Fears about terrorists detonating stolen nuclear devices are for the most part unfounded.
Now Iran is a totalitarian state that at times isn't too nice to it's people. Well so is China. So was the former USSR. We had no problem with them having nukes. I fail to see why Iran should be any differant. Iran is hardly going to use them, for the same reason North Korea won't use them: it's suicide. Nuclear weapons are defensive devices that have no real military value, only political. If Iran wants some nukes to make them feel safe, I say let them. The US and Russia have 60,000 of the things between them; what differance will 3 or 4 more make?
<!--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-->Firstly a special code must be entered or the bomb won't detonate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you build it that way.
<!--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-->How is Iranian nuclear material more "vunerable"?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Small stockpiles are inherently more vulnerable. There is always a danger of the weapons being taken out in a pre-emptive strike. If there is a risk of your insurance policy being taken away, you will be faced with a use it or lose it situation. That is not good. That means if they feel threatened, the risk of them striking first with nuclear weapons is much greater. It's either that or not be able to use them at all. That is why large stockpiles are safer. America and russias stockpiles were huge, more than enough to destroy each other. So why build so much? Because the large stockpiles ensure that even if one side strikes the other pre-emptively, enough nuclear weapons will survive to still obliterate the other side. This is the only case when nuclear weapons can be truely defensive in nature.
All stockpiles must undergo regular, expensive, maintinence. If you want 1 nuclear weapon at the ready at all times, your going to need at least 2. And so on-
Plus delivery. Iranian weapons will most likely be delivered by aircraft, or IRBM's. If you are going to deliver them, they need to be out of the vault, and any time they are out of storage they are at high risk of being destroyed or captured. US and Russian ICBM's are usually in hardened shelters that are isolated and well guarded. Some of these shelters can withstand 2,000 psi blasts and are designed to withstand anything short of a contact explosion by a nuclear weapon (nothing can survive that, not even chyenne mountain). This means they can be "stored" and safe but ready to launch within a moments notice. Iran will, again, most likely be using mobile IRBM's and aircraft which are vulnerable.
Each method has advantages and disadvantages. Aircraft and mobile IRBMs are soft targets, but they're mobile. If you can keep hidden, your ok. But if not, your screwed. If you have a large number of nuclear weapons, it works. Because you can afford to lose some and still strike the enemy.
Hardened silos will protect the weapon from terrorist and covert operations trying to destroy or steal the weapon. But then it's a static target and everyone knows where they are. A good airstrike package would be able to take them out probably.
Either way, its risky. And thats the point. North Korea is even worse, because their government is so unstable.
<!--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-->They wouldn't have probably resources to develope large quantities of nuclear weapons, so they will guard those few they have.
Besides it's much more easier to get nukes from Russia because they have them a lot and they don't have resources to guard all of them properly. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your right, they wouldn't have the resources to develop a large number of weapons. And for a "safe" stockpile to be defensive in nature, they'd need a reletively large number (200 or so perhaps). Your not making your stance any better by saying "Well they can't build many".
Even nations who guard their weapons with great care, like russia (at the time they were a superpower) may lose a few in any political shift or due to stealing. Contrary to popular belief, just because you have a large stockpile does not mean it's easy to steal one or two without being noticed. They're safer in reality, and Superpowers guard their nuclear weapons very well
<!--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-->Fears about terrorists detonating stolen nuclear devices are for the most part unfounded.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
a) No, your wrong. The threat IS there. Again, back to the gun question: Give a kid an empty gun, good fine. He can't do anything. But if he finds some bullets...
the point is, we want to keep the weapons out of terrorists hands quite simply because if you are wrong, 300,000 people may die from it. You gonna take that risk? We can't.
b) even if they cannot detonate the nuke, the materials can still be spread around by a conventional explosive. Still bad.
So yeah, don't try to feed to these people that there isn't a threat.
I'm going to make this so ridiculously simple that no one can deny the logic behind my reasoning. I said <b>no one</b>
Now...
Why would Iranians want nukes? Either for a) Attacking b) Defence ...and the right answer is B. Yes, they know they are going to get royally destroyed(meaning r**ed) if they use them to attack someone. And they don't have that bad enemies anyway.
So we are all safe! Or are we? Maybe some eeeevil terrorist comes and steals them!
But worry not my friend. Because the nukes are for defending and if there is nothing immediate threatning them, the nukes will be stored deep deep deep in some sekrat volcano facility where trained monkeys take care of the nukes. So no worry there! It's easier to steal a nuke from Russia or buy one from black market than it is to steal it from newly found nuclear powers. I already wrote in some other thread how easy it would be to get a nuke and attack, say, USA's major city. It is already possible but there are just no one willing to kill so many civilians. So you're safe...for now.
I hope that helps <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->I'm going to make this so ridiculously simple that no one can deny the logic behind my reasoning. I said no one<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry to dissapoint you <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->Why would Iranians want nukes? Either for a) Attacking b) Defence ...and the right answer is B. Yes, they know they are going to get royally destroyed(meaning r**ed) if they use them to attack someone. And they don't have that bad enemies anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
theres always c) leverage. Threatening to attack is one way to get what you want.
Yes, if they attack they'll get royally destroyed if they use them to attack someone. But, the problem is, since they can only create a small stockpile, they risk losing said nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike. Now, if they are FOR defense, and you might lose them, your going to be inclined to use them first, while you can. After all, if they are taken out and you are conquered, they didn't do you a bit of good. Yes, you may be destroyed by using the nuclear weapons before you lose them, but how is that better than being destroyed because your weapons were taken out and now your enemies have killed you....
However, do not speak of the monkeys anymore. No one is supposed to know about them <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Burncycle+Sep 17 2003, 06:41 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Sep 17 2003, 06:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--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-->I'm going to make this so ridiculously simple that no one can deny the logic behind my reasoning. I said no one<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry to dissapoint you <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I hate you.
<!--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-->theres always c) leverage. Threatening to attack is one way to get what you want.
Yes, if they attack they'll get royally destroyed if they use them to attack someone. But, the problem is, since they can only create a small stockpile, they risk losing said nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike. Now, if they are FOR defense, and you might lose them, your going to be inclined to use them first, while you can. After all, if they are taken out and you are conquered, they didn't do you a bit of good. Yes, you may be destroyed by using the nuclear weapons before you lose them, but how is that better than being destroyed because your weapons were taken out and now your enemies have killed you....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think they are going to blackmail anyone. They don't probably want to risk of going in to war and they don't want to lose their nukes. Besides, what country has used nukes like that before? Don't say N-Korea because it's not.
<!--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-->However, do not speak of the monkeys anymore. No one is supposed to know about them <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, the iranian combat-fighter monkeys trained by MonsE in Saudi Arabia. Must not leak this to the public.
so lets assume they select c) leverage. what do other nuclear nations say to this? probably somthing along the lines of try it, and youll find nukes raining down upon yourselves. it comes back to a) attack, the reason they dont threaten is the same reason they dont attack.
<!--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-->so lets assume they select c) leverage. what do other nuclear nations say to this? probably somthing along the lines of try it, and youll find nukes raining down upon yourselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They may express their concern, but only america and israel has actively DONE anything pre-emptively to stop it, rather than just diplomatic attempts (that I know of, correct me if I'm wrong). All nuclear powers threaten retaliatory strikes, but that's a given. Thats pretty much along the lines of defense- now if a country threatens to strike in offense, then it becomes a major issue. 3rd world countries desperate to move up in the world might just do that, they don't have too much to lose. North Korea at the moment is sabre rattling. They "threaten" to test a nuclear weapon. They're probing to see what we do, and to see if we'll give in and supply them economic aid. At this point, it may be possible; we don't really have the manpower to go toe to toe in another major conflict right now. The economic route may be easier, though I hope we don't give in to such blackmail, or it'll be happening over and over. As mentioned in my exhaustively long post on north korea, nothing really good can come of them attaining nuclear weapons. But I fear no one will tolerate the US striking pre-emptively. The problem is, if it is successful and north korea doesn't aquire nuclear weapons, no one will ever see the benefits. On the other hand, if we don't stop it when we can, and nukes get loose, then what do you think people are gonna say? Yep, you guessed it. "America, you had the chance to stop this and you didn't..."
Can't win with some people.
Its just like driving towards a brick wall with no brakes. Should you bail now? It'll hurt in the short run, but maybe its better in the long run. Nah, maybe the brakes will magically come back. When you realize they won't, it's too late to bail, that was an option that has expired. This stuff is coming, and when north korea gets nuclear weapons things are going to get a whole lot more complex.
If I recall correctly, China has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons to some degree (maybe not outright... but they'll hint here or there), but nothings ever come of it. They're not dumb- as hostile sometimes as china and america are, they're economically symbiotic it seems.
That's a theory. However I think that if someone tries to blackmail with nuclear weapons, just call their bluff and they can't do crap. They <b>can't</b> attack. They won't if they know what is good for them, because the leaders have their whole power to lose. Just call their bluff. And besides, I repeat, no nation has tried to blackmail another nation with "Give us X or we'll beat you silly". It doesn't work like that.
And additionally, this thread is not about N-Korea so please don't de-rail <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Indeed they can't attack directly. Calling their bluff is probably what we're going to do- and if they test the device itself we may take further steps.
However they can still strike us if they want to. They can attack indirectly two ways:
strike the target (say, a us port on the west coast) with a nuclear weapon on board a ship, and then say it was terrorists.
or
release nuclear weapons on the black market or to a terrorist group individually. You can deny it - saying some were "stolen". And let THEM attack.
Things like this are what we're trying to avoid.
Technically they can get away with it, but likely we will retaliate with nuclear weapons. We'd have to. Once they use nuclear weapons against you, attacking them conventionally is not an acceptable response. Plus, we said we'd use nuclear weapons in retaliation if our enemy used them, and going back on that word is very dangerous, because it lets everyone know we really won't. In any case, it won't make the rest of the world happy especially because it will kill alot of civilians. I don't know what they'll do. Maybe they'll back off like in september 11th and let us do our thing... or maybe they'll stop us, as a limited nuclear exhange may be too costly. The whole idea is to not let anything like that happen in the first place. And that is a very unpopular course of action especially to people who haven't looked into the issue as deeply- on the surface it just seems like another "You don't have the right to tell them they can't have nukes" issue.
Now, all of this is conjecture. Worst case scinario type stuff. In general, your right. They won't use them, it's a bluff, and they're sabre rattling to see if they can get something, using their nuclear program as leverage. But the problem is, when your playing the nuclear game, you can't afford to be wrong. Especially with unpredictable and unstable countries like north korea.
But your right, I am getting a little off topic. We can continue elsewhere if you like.
As for the topic, I still believe we can't really go in Iran. Not until we finish some other things first. We're spread all over Iraq, Afganistan, North Korea, etc, and many of our troops have already been activated for much longer than they should have been. Now, they'll stay until the jobs done probably, they're not gonna **** out- but when they do get a chance I wouldn't be surprised to see many of the reservists/guards get out.
Thats not to say we WON'T go into Iran. Who knows what the administration has lined up. I just think it wouldn't be smart.
<!--QuoteBegin--Burncycle+Sep 17 2003, 09:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Burncycle @ Sep 17 2003, 09:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But your right, I am getting a little off topic. We can continue elsewhere if you like. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There's this N-Korea thread somewhere. If you want, we can continue there but it's still basicly the same situation as in Iran. With a small twist.
However I don't think there is much more to say about this thing. Your post pretty much sums it up and rest is just personal opinions and bias.
<!--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-->I'd just like to state that UN is not going to do jack, It's going to be the US who's going to do all the dirty work and then catch flak for doing it. Just like Kosovo. Or WW2. Or Vietnam. Or Iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hold on a sec. WW2? Other countries fought hard before the US entered and after the US entered. They saved lives, maybe even saved the day, but they sure as hell were not doing the dirty work alone.
<!--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-->No, we don't say "Give us oil or we'll nuke you".
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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://search.cnn.com/cnn/search?source=cnn&invocationType=search%2Ftop&sites=cnn&query=nuclear+posture+review' target='_blank'>Poke around in here . . . </a>
We <i>have</i> basically said, 'Don't invade Taiwan, or we'll nuke you', among other things.
Additionally:
<!--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-->The Pentagon report lists three conditions in which the use of nuclear weapons might be considered, including: • Use against targets capable of withstanding non-nuclear attacks • Retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons • And a third, catch-all category: "in the event of surprising military developments." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Retaliation for WMDs is <i>one</i> of <i>three</i>, and the last reeks of 'pre-emption'.
Comments
common sense? logic? past experience?
Everything I've said about north korea applies. If, in your opinion, it's a load of horse **** and anyone should be able to have nukes if they want them no matter what, so be it. I'm not trying to force the issue down your throat. But it does provide another viewpoint.
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. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't really see your reasoning behind that. I don't believe they have a reason to fear us except for the fact that we are upset with them developing Nuclear weapons in an unstable country where they may be stolen.
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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't really see your reasoning behind that. I don't believe they have a reason to fear us except for the fact that we are upset with them developing Nuclear weapons in an unstable country where they may be stolen. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
They wouldn't have probably resources to develope large quantities of nuclear weapons, so they will guard those few they have.
Besides it's much more easier to get nukes from Russia because they have them a lot and they don't have resources to guard all of them properly.
Well it would seem that the nuclear response of Iran occured after it was lumped in the "Axis of Evil". In any case though we seem to be getting a little worried for no reason. Yes, nuclear material in Iran could be stolen. It could also be stolen from China, Russia, the USA, France, India, Britian, Pakistan or Israel. We don't tell these nations to get rid of their weapons though. How is Iranian nuclear material more "vunerable"? Every nation guards it's nuclear material and weaponry very closely. Iran, having just started their program, would guard their nukes better than their gold. Then of course, there's the issue of once you have the bomb, what can you do with it? First you have to figure out how to blow it up. That's an issue in itself. Firstly a special code must be entered or the bomb won't detonate. Say you manage to get past that somehow. Now the bomb inside is equipped with equipment that calculates rate of descent, velocity etc. If the bomb isn't moving at the speeds that were programmed into it, no explosion. Which would mean a terrorist would have to get it on board an aircraft then drop it over an intended target at the correct height.
Sounds tough eh? What a terrorist is most likely to do is get hold of nuclear waste or radioactive material and scatter it over an area with an explosive device. A far out scenario is taking the processed plutonium or uranium from an nuclear warhead and building a whole new bomb around it. Which requires very precise machinery and the help of at least one highly skilled nuclear physicist, plus some quite compitant engineers. In other words unlikely to happen. Fears about terrorists detonating stolen nuclear devices are for the most part unfounded.
Now Iran is a totalitarian state that at times isn't too nice to it's people. Well so is China. So was the former USSR. We had no problem with them having nukes. I fail to see why Iran should be any differant. Iran is hardly going to use them, for the same reason North Korea won't use them: it's suicide. Nuclear weapons are defensive devices that have no real military value, only political. If Iran wants some nukes to make them feel safe, I say let them. The US and Russia have 60,000 of the things between them; what differance will 3 or 4 more make?
If you build it that way.
<!--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-->How is Iranian nuclear material more "vunerable"?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Small stockpiles are inherently more vulnerable. There is always a danger of the weapons being taken out in a pre-emptive strike. If there is a risk of your insurance policy being taken away, you will be faced with a use it or lose it situation. That is not good. That means if they feel threatened, the risk of them striking first with nuclear weapons is much greater. It's either that or not be able to use them at all. That is why large stockpiles are safer. America and russias stockpiles were huge, more than enough to destroy each other. So why build so much? Because the large stockpiles ensure that even if one side strikes the other pre-emptively, enough nuclear weapons will survive to still obliterate the other side. This is the only case when nuclear weapons can be truely defensive in nature.
All stockpiles must undergo regular, expensive, maintinence. If you want 1 nuclear weapon at the ready at all times, your going to need at least 2. And so on-
Plus delivery. Iranian weapons will most likely be delivered by aircraft, or IRBM's. If you are going to deliver them, they need to be out of the vault, and any time they are out of storage they are at high risk of being destroyed or captured. US and Russian ICBM's are usually in hardened shelters that are isolated and well guarded. Some of these shelters can withstand 2,000 psi blasts and are designed to withstand anything short of a contact explosion by a nuclear weapon (nothing can survive that, not even chyenne mountain). This means they can be "stored" and safe but ready to launch within a moments notice. Iran will, again, most likely be using mobile IRBM's and aircraft which are vulnerable.
Each method has advantages and disadvantages. Aircraft and mobile IRBMs are soft targets, but they're mobile. If you can keep hidden, your ok. But if not, your screwed. If you have a large number of nuclear weapons, it works. Because you can afford to lose some and still strike the enemy.
Hardened silos will protect the weapon from terrorist and covert operations trying to destroy or steal the weapon. But then it's a static target and everyone knows where they are. A good airstrike package would be able to take them out probably.
Either way, its risky. And thats the point. North Korea is even worse, because their government is so unstable.
<!--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-->They wouldn't have probably resources to develope large quantities of nuclear weapons, so they will guard those few they have.
Besides it's much more easier to get nukes from Russia because they have them a lot and they don't have resources to guard all of them properly. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your right, they wouldn't have the resources to develop a large number of weapons. And for a "safe" stockpile to be defensive in nature, they'd need a reletively large number (200 or so perhaps). Your not making your stance any better by saying "Well they can't build many".
Even nations who guard their weapons with great care, like russia (at the time they were a superpower) may lose a few in any political shift or due to stealing. Contrary to popular belief, just because you have a large stockpile does not mean it's easy to steal one or two without being noticed. They're safer in reality, and Superpowers guard their nuclear weapons very well
<!--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-->Fears about terrorists detonating stolen nuclear devices are for the most part unfounded.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
a) No, your wrong. The threat IS there. Again, back to the gun question: Give a kid an empty gun, good fine. He can't do anything. But if he finds some bullets...
the point is, we want to keep the weapons out of terrorists hands quite simply because if you are wrong, 300,000 people may die from it. You gonna take that risk? We can't.
b) even if they cannot detonate the nuke, the materials can still be spread around by a conventional explosive. Still bad.
So yeah, don't try to feed to these people that there isn't a threat.
Now...
Why would Iranians want nukes? Either for
a) Attacking
b) Defence
...and the right answer is B. Yes, they know they are going to get royally destroyed(meaning r**ed) if they use them to attack someone. And they don't have that bad enemies anyway.
So we are all safe! Or are we? Maybe some eeeevil terrorist comes and steals them!
But worry not my friend. Because the nukes are for defending and if there is nothing immediate threatning them, the nukes will be stored deep deep deep in some sekrat volcano facility where trained monkeys take care of the nukes. So no worry there! It's easier to steal a nuke from Russia or buy one from black market than it is to steal it from newly found nuclear powers. I already wrote in some other thread how easy it would be to get a nuke and attack, say, USA's major city. It is already possible but there are just no one willing to kill so many civilians. So you're safe...for now.
I hope that helps <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Sorry to dissapoint you <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->Why would Iranians want nukes? Either for
a) Attacking
b) Defence
...and the right answer is B. Yes, they know they are going to get royally destroyed(meaning r**ed) if they use them to attack someone. And they don't have that bad enemies anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
theres always c) leverage. Threatening to attack is one way to get what you want.
Yes, if they attack they'll get royally destroyed if they use them to attack someone. But, the problem is, since they can only create a small stockpile, they risk losing said nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike. Now, if they are FOR defense, and you might lose them, your going to be inclined to use them first, while you can. After all, if they are taken out and you are conquered, they didn't do you a bit of good. Yes, you may be destroyed by using the nuclear weapons before you lose them, but how is that better than being destroyed because your weapons were taken out and now your enemies have killed you....
However, do not speak of the monkeys anymore. No one is supposed to know about them <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Sorry to dissapoint you <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hate you.
<3
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--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-->theres always c) leverage. Threatening to attack is one way to get what you want.
Yes, if they attack they'll get royally destroyed if they use them to attack someone. But, the problem is, since they can only create a small stockpile, they risk losing said nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike. Now, if they are FOR defense, and you might lose them, your going to be inclined to use them first, while you can. After all, if they are taken out and you are conquered, they didn't do you a bit of good. Yes, you may be destroyed by using the nuclear weapons before you lose them, but how is that better than being destroyed because your weapons were taken out and now your enemies have killed you....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think they are going to blackmail anyone. They don't probably want to risk of going in to war and they don't want to lose their nukes. Besides, what country has used nukes like that before? Don't say N-Korea because it's not.
<!--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-->However, do not speak of the monkeys anymore. No one is supposed to know about them <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, the iranian combat-fighter monkeys trained by MonsE in Saudi Arabia. Must not leak this to the public.
o_O
O_o
Uh...
it comes back to a) attack, the reason they dont threaten is the same reason they dont attack.
They may express their concern, but only america and israel has actively DONE anything pre-emptively to stop it, rather than just diplomatic attempts (that I know of, correct me if I'm wrong). All nuclear powers threaten retaliatory strikes, but that's a given. Thats pretty much along the lines of defense- now if a country threatens to strike in offense, then it becomes a major issue. 3rd world countries desperate to move up in the world might just do that, they don't have too much to lose. North Korea at the moment is sabre rattling. They "threaten" to test a nuclear weapon. They're probing to see what we do, and to see if we'll give in and supply them economic aid. At this point, it may be possible; we don't really have the manpower to go toe to toe in another major conflict right now. The economic route may be easier, though I hope we don't give in to such blackmail, or it'll be happening over and over. As mentioned in my exhaustively long post on north korea, nothing really good can come of them attaining nuclear weapons. But I fear no one will tolerate the US striking pre-emptively. The problem is, if it is successful and north korea doesn't aquire nuclear weapons, no one will ever see the benefits. On the other hand, if we don't stop it when we can, and nukes get loose, then what do you think people are gonna say? Yep, you guessed it. "America, you had the chance to stop this and you didn't..."
Can't win with some people.
Its just like driving towards a brick wall with no brakes. Should you bail now? It'll hurt in the short run, but maybe its better in the long run. Nah, maybe the brakes will magically come back. When you realize they won't, it's too late to bail, that was an option that has expired. This stuff is coming, and when north korea gets nuclear weapons things are going to get a whole lot more complex.
If I recall correctly, China has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons to some degree (maybe not outright... but they'll hint here or there), but nothings ever come of it. They're not dumb- as hostile sometimes as china and america are, they're economically symbiotic it seems.
And additionally, this thread is not about N-Korea so please don't de-rail <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
However they can still strike us if they want to. They can attack indirectly two ways:
strike the target (say, a us port on the west coast) with a nuclear weapon on board a ship, and then say it was terrorists.
or
release nuclear weapons on the black market or to a terrorist group individually. You can deny it - saying some were "stolen". And let THEM attack.
Things like this are what we're trying to avoid.
Technically they can get away with it, but likely we will retaliate with nuclear weapons. We'd have to. Once they use nuclear weapons against you, attacking them conventionally is not an acceptable response. Plus, we said we'd use nuclear weapons in retaliation if our enemy used them, and going back on that word is very dangerous, because it lets everyone know we really won't. In any case, it won't make the rest of the world happy especially because it will kill alot of civilians. I don't know what they'll do. Maybe they'll back off like in september 11th and let us do our thing... or maybe they'll stop us, as a limited nuclear exhange may be too costly. The whole idea is to not let anything like that happen in the first place. And that is a very unpopular course of action especially to people who haven't looked into the issue as deeply- on the surface it just seems like another "You don't have the right to tell them they can't have nukes" issue.
Now, all of this is conjecture. Worst case scinario type stuff. In general, your right. They won't use them, it's a bluff, and they're sabre rattling to see if they can get something, using their nuclear program as leverage. But the problem is, when your playing the nuclear game, you can't afford to be wrong. Especially with unpredictable and unstable countries like north korea.
But your right, I am getting a little off topic. We can continue elsewhere if you like.
As for the topic, I still believe we can't really go in Iran. Not until we finish some other things first. We're spread all over Iraq, Afganistan, North Korea, etc, and many of our troops have already been activated for much longer than they should have been. Now, they'll stay until the jobs done probably, they're not gonna **** out- but when they do get a chance I wouldn't be surprised to see many of the reservists/guards get out.
Thats not to say we WON'T go into Iran. Who knows what the administration has lined up. I just think it wouldn't be smart.
There's this N-Korea thread somewhere. If you want, we can continue there but it's still basicly the same situation as in Iran. With a small twist.
However I don't think there is much more to say about this thing. Your post pretty much sums it up and rest is just personal opinions and bias.
Hold on a sec. WW2? Other countries fought hard before the US entered and after the US entered. They saved lives, maybe even saved the day, but they sure as hell were not doing the dirty work alone.
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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://search.cnn.com/cnn/search?source=cnn&invocationType=search%2Ftop&sites=cnn&query=nuclear+posture+review' target='_blank'>Poke around in here . . . </a>
We <i>have</i> basically said, 'Don't invade Taiwan, or we'll nuke you', among other things.
Additionally:
<!--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-->The Pentagon report lists three conditions in which the use of nuclear weapons might be considered, including:
• Use against targets capable of withstanding non-nuclear attacks
• Retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons
• And a third, catch-all category: "in the event of surprising military developments."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Retaliation for WMDs is <i>one</i> of <i>three</i>, and the last reeks of 'pre-emption'.
Back to your regularly scheduled program . . .