How would the middle east change if Iran developed the Nuke?

[Moonbeam]

Are you completely oblivious to what the future would be like if every nation had nuclear weapons? How can you not see that this will trigger more and more to obtain the bomb? Nuclear proliferation CANNOT be allowed. And this isn't just some imagined nightmare of those you disagree with politically: it's what Iran SAYS they will do with it. Get it? They can't be allowed to have it... EVER. Not now and not in 10 years. It doesn't matter how slowly we allow it to proliferate. It is a completely unacceptable outcome. Period.

"Self hate." Laughable.

Hehehehehehehehe! Very laughable. But then you can't have any idea at all how hard it is to know what you feel. It would require the end of ego. You have enormous armor against the truth but you don't know it. What is the our fate when a genius level teenager can create a nano-molecular-disassembler that self replicates. Welcome to a world of powder. We deal with our mental illness or we go extinct. Yours is the path of the latter. He who lives by the sword dies by it. Fear is the mind killer. Your fear of the other who is a projection of yourself. What great and spiritually advanced nation was it that used nuclear weapons against Japan. But then, of course, they were less than animals, so like animals, we used the weapon against them. But let's start over and pretend we are the only saints in the world. You do not know what you feel and what your fear is capable of.

 

[yllus]

So, the U.S. can have a Cold War with Russia and posture and threaten and escalate with the ability to back it up, no matter the cost, to the point of mutually assured destruction and we can't do that with Iran? Then the U.S. is no longer a superpower either.

Iraq was a failed attempt to take care of North Korea and Iran for cheap. It didn't work. Now we have to pony up.

Gots ta have are Government-subsidized healthcare and cellphone at the expense of allowing World War 3 and Holocaust II.

It isn't the government's job to make sure we aren't hungry or sick or lonely. That is society's job, and society does not equate to government. This is the government's job and this is what they are failing at.

None of what you said here is relevant. If you can propose actions that realistically lead to Iran either no longer being an enemy nation or permanently removes their ability to gain nuclear weapons, do so.

 

[fskimospy]

So, the U.S. can have a Cold War with Russia and posture and threaten and escalate with the ability to back it up, no matter the cost, to the point of mutually assured destruction and we can't do that with Iran? Then the U.S. is no longer a superpower either.

Iraq was a failed attempt to take care of North Korea and Iran for cheap. It didn't work. Now we have to pony up.

Gots ta have are Government-subsidized healthcare and cellphone at the expense of allowing World War 3 and Holocaust II.

It isn't the government's job to make sure we aren't hungry or sick or lonely. That is society's job, and society does not equate to government. This is the government's job and this is what they are failing at.

Well the people who wrote the constitution seemed to disagree with you on that, as our system gives government plenty of powers to mitigate hunger, etc.

Iran getting nuclear weapons could be bad for regional stability and it would certainly empower them to do things we dont like. For that reason we should oppose it. Anyone who thinks it will lead to WW3 or a second holocaust is nuts though. The only person who seems to be arguing that is Netanyahu and who is naive enough to believe that guy at this point?

 

[MongGrel]

Can you blame them, though? After all, what you witnessed was pretty much a direct result of over 20 years of being forced to endure a government the people didn't elect.....after the U.S. and England engineered an overthrow of the duly elected Iranian government in 1953. So no surprise there was and is lingering distrust, to put it mildly, of the Western governments.

Perhaps not, I have grown up a lot in the last 35 years.

I still do not trust them with Nukes.

And yes it would really start a ME arms race, Pakistan is bad enough atm.

 

[chucky2]

Iraq and Syria were both stopped. Israel bombed their facilities.

Fern

Neither were actually stopped, they were delayed. Syria has again been delayed because of their internal struggles, when those are eventually resolved, and the new Leadership(s) desire nuclear weapons, as long as they have the $ and will to acquire them, they will. Iraq, Saddam, was stopped because we went into Iraq. It remains to be seen long term how Iraq will play out, and what type of Leadership(s) will come out of that. They too will have the money to acquire nukes if they want, only their desire and will is in question.

It will be interesting in the next 30-40 years, given how much $ China has, and how they will come up against us on the world stage, how they develop their anti-air capabilities and how eager they are to sell them off. Same with Russia. Consider we're replacing the Gen4 fighters with a Gen5 fighter that basically is no better performance-wise but has technology and air to air stealth ability - it's ability to defeat advanced ground radars remains to be seen. Now consider Israel is the only one who is going to have the balls (or some would say the arrogance) to attack a ME country pursuing nukes, and that Israel has Gen4 and soon the F-35. What happens when a ME country spends some $ to gain not only advanced Mil hardware that has no problems with Gen4 but can take down Gen5? Drones won't cut it, they'll need bunker busters which means F-15E - I don't even know if F-35 can carriage those in stealth config, and in non-stealth config there goes the stealth.

 

[chucky2]

as usual blowing smoke out your ass....too bad nobody believes you!@

I'm sorry if as an Israel shill you cannot accept Reality, but, unfortunately for you, that is Reality. I for one cannot wait to see the eventual dissolution of what is present day Israel. So much BS has happened because something Western powers couldn't help themselves doing because they didn't want Jews in their own counties, so they F'd over the locals in a place no one cared about. Israel is essentially an abomination (with hot women).

 

[realibrad]

Lol, yeah screw context because that's not important at all.



If I'm staring you in the face and I say, "I'm going to kick your ass" that's a threat. If I walk away and tell my friend, "I would have kicked his ass if he tried something", is me talking shit.

If you don't understand the difference then that's in you

And if I say that if you try and stop me from attacking people against international law I will nuke you, then that is not a threat.

Your argument is that unless one person or one group is directly called out, its not a threat. It is possible that you could threaten multiple groups at once.

If I am beating my wife (dont have a wife) and I tell the group watching that if anyone tries to stop me, I will shoot them, I have threatened the entire group. Its still a threat. It really is just that simple.

I think you are tying to say that Putin did not make a threat because he was just pointing out a fact. That still does not make what he has done not a threat.

 

[ivwshane]

And if I say that if you try and stop me from attacking people against international law I will nuke you, then that is not a threat.
Are you talking directly to me or at a group of kids at a youth forum? If it's not directly at me then it's chest thumping, no more.

Your argument is that unless one person or one group is directly called out, its not a threat. It is possible that you could threaten multiple groups at once.

If I am beating my wife (dont have a wife) and I tell the group watching that if anyone tries to stop me, I will shoot them, I have threatened the entire group. Its still a threat. It really is just that simple.

Both were said and directed to a particular group, therefore it's a threat.

I think you are tying to say that Putin did not make a threat because he was just pointing out a fact. That still does not make what he has done not a threat.

I wouldn't call it a fact but for the most part he was simply talking trash.

 

[realibrad]

I wouldn't call it a fact but for the most part he was simply talking trash.

you are using ambiguous language now. "Talking trash" can be threats. You seem to now be saying that Putin was not serious about his threat, therefore, its not actually a threat.

If you tell someone that you will do something to them, even when its in self defense, its a threat.

a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done

What Putin did is by definition a threat.

 

[ivwshane]

you are using ambiguous language now. "Talking trash" can be threats. You seem to now be saying that Putin was not serious about his threat, therefore, its not actually a threat.

If you tell someone that you will do something to them, even when its in self defense, its a threat.

I really don't know why this is hard for you to understand. If I tell someone (which requires me to address them directly), it's a threat.

What Putin did is by definition a threat.

Then I guess we should just agree to disagree. I see Putins talk as no more of a threat than when republicans talk to their constituents about impeaching Obama, it's a hollow threat, devoid of any significance.

 

[realibrad]

Then I guess we should just agree to disagree. I see Putins talk as no more of a threat than when republicans talk to their constituents about impeaching Obama, it's a hollow threat, devoid of any significance.

Its a threat that has far more severe implications. If I walk into a store and say to the people that if they speak to me, I will burp in their face, I threatened them. Its not a big deal, and so people will leave me alone, but I am not likely to get arrested for it.

If I walk into that same store and say that if they speak to me, I will shoot them with the gun I have, that is also a threat. The reaction I would get is likely much greater, because the stakes are much higher.

So when republicans talk about impeaching Obama, its a threat, but the outcome is small compared to starting a nuclear war.

This is not a question of subjective semantics. You are empirically wrong. You may not wish to admit it, but you are wrong.

Countries don't get nukes to bully other countries, they get nukes to stop other countries from bullying them or they get them as a deterrent.

So, when Russia invades Georgia, nothing happens because Russia has nukes and an armed conflict would be quite bad. Russia is using its nukes to stop other countries from stopping them. Russia is bullying other countries politically or with military invasion, and the reason we have done so little, is that Russia has nukes.

So as you say.

Put up or shut up bitch

 

[ivwshane]

The implications are only severe if you believe there is any truth to it. Which is why you see everything big, bad, scary, Putin says as a threat, because you believe them to be true. The problem is that your fear keeps you from dealing with reality.

Just ask yourself these questions:
When has Russia ever attacked a post WWII US?
When has Russia ever used nukes?

The answer of course is, never. Do you know why?

Now ask yourself why Putin would make such statements.
Has the US ever used nukes?
Has the US ever overthrown a government/dictator/elected leader?

You are a smart guy but your irrational fear (and it is irrational) has made you look stupid

Its a threat that has far more severe implications. If I walk into a store and say to the people that if they speak to me, I will burp in their face, I threatened them. Its not a big deal, and so people will leave me alone, but I am not likely to get arrested for it.

If I walk into that same store and say that if they speak to me, I will shoot them with the gun I have, that is also a threat. The reaction I would get is likely much greater, because the stakes are much higher.

So when republicans talk about impeaching Obama, its a threat, but the outcome is small compared to starting a nuclear war.

This is not a question of subjective semantics. You are empirically wrong. You may not wish to admit it, but you are wrong.



So, when Russia invades Georgia, nothing happens because Russia has nukes and an armed conflict would be quite bad. Russia is using its nukes to stop other countries from stopping them. Russia is bullying other countries politically or with military invasion, and the reason we have done so little, is that Russia has nukes.

So as you say.

 

[realibrad]

The implications are only severe if you believe there is any truth to it. Which is why you see everything big, bad, scary, Putin says as a threat, because you believe them to be true. The problem is that your fear keeps you from dealing with reality.

Just ask yourself these questions:
When has Russia ever attacked a post WWII US?
When has Russia ever used nukes?

The answer of course is, never. Do you know why?

Now ask yourself why Putin would make such statements.
Has the US ever used nukes?
Has the US ever overthrown a government/dictator/elected leader?

You are a smart guy but your irrational fear (and it is irrational) has made you look stupid

Has the US ever attacked Russia? No.
Has Russia ever Attacked the US? No.
Has the US used Nukes? Yes
Has Russia ever used Nukes? No.
Has the US ever overthrown a government/dictator/elected leader? Yes
Has Russia ever overthrown a government/dictator/elected leader? Yes, many more times than the US.

The nukes used were during a war that the US was pushed into by Japan attacking. Japan had been beaten back to its mainland, and would not surrender. It had been working on its own nuclear weapons, and was not too far off from having its own working nuke. Had the US done a land invasion, it would have cost an estimated 1 million lives for the Allied forces (Operation Downfall). Had nukes not been used, it would have cost many more lives. Many will try and make the argument that nukes were not needed, but that is wrong. The US dropped 1 bomb, and Japan did not surrender. It was only after the 2nd bomb was dropped did Japan surrender.

So, if your point is that the threat made by Putin was harmless because the US has done far worse, you are wrong again. The Soviet Union collapsed many governments and leaders in its time. Putin was part of the KGB during that period, and thus was likely to have played a role in those activities.

I should also note that I don't fear Putin. I do feel bad for those that are being hurt by him and his country, but I do not worry for the US. That does not make what he said any less of a legit threat.

You are losing ground quite fast here.

I'm going to guess that you are younger than 40. Your knowledge seems to have some very big gaps in it, and I assume that comes from what you were taught in school and what you pick up in the media. If you are older than 40 then my god man, learn a little about this before you speak.

 

[ivwshane]

It's like I'm talking to a fucking wall. Try reading my post again to see if you can understand the point I was making. Then when you think you've understood the point, reread my post again.

Btw, you didn't answer the important questions and you also gave answers to questions I didn't ask because you were too busy trying to counter a point I didn't make (which seems to be a common theme with your posts).

Has the US ever attacked Russia? No.
Has Russia ever Attacked the US? No.
Has the US used Nukes? Yes
Has Russia ever used Nukes? No.
Has the US ever overthrown a government/dictator/elected leader? Yes
Has Russia ever overthrown a government/dictator/elected leader? Yes, many more times than the US.

The nukes used were during a war that the US was pushed into by Japan attacking. Japan had been beaten back to its mainland, and would not surrender. It had been working on its own nuclear weapons, and was not too far off from having its own working nuke. Had the US done a land invasion, it would have cost an estimated 1 million lives for the Allied forces (Operation Downfall). Had nukes not been used, it would have cost many more lives. Many will try and make the argument that nukes were not needed, but that is wrong. The US dropped 1 bomb, and Japan did not surrender. It was only after the 2nd bomb was dropped did Japan surrender.

So, if your point is that the threat made by Putin was harmless because the US has done far worse, you are wrong again. The Soviet Union collapsed many governments and leaders in its time. Putin was part of the KGB during that period, and thus was likely to have played a role in those activities.

I should also note that I don't fear Putin. I do feel bad for those that are being hurt by him and his country, but I do not worry for the US. That does not make what he said any less of a legit threat.

You are losing ground quite fast here.

I'm going to guess that you are younger than 40. Your knowledge seems to have some very big gaps in it, and I assume that comes from what you were taught in school and what you pick up in the media. If you are older than 40 then my god man, learn a little about this before you speak.

 

[cubby1223]

threat
THret/
noun
noun: threat; plural noun: threats

1.
a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.

It's like I'm talking to a fucking wall.

We all think that every time we get suckered into a conversation with you. Man up.

Look! Russia makes yet another nuclear threat:
http://news.yahoo.com/denmark-could-face-attack-joins-nato-shield-russian-190819455.html

 

[cubby1223]

So, if your point is that the threat made by Putin was harmless because the US has done far worse, you are wrong again. The Soviet Union collapsed many governments and leaders in its time. Putin was part of the KGB during that period, and thus was likely to have played a role in those activities.

His point is he doesn't believe they are threats just because he doesn't believe it will happen.

Much easier to say while typing on a keyboard thousands of miles away from Moscow, than if you are a resident of a former Eastern Bloc nation facing an increasingly hostile ethnic Russian population emboldened by propaganda and a belief of minimal physical retaliation due to Russia's nuclear capabilities.

 

[realibrad]

It's like I'm talking to a fucking wall. Try reading my post again to see if you can understand the point I was making. Then when you think you've understood the point, reread my post again.

Btw, you didn't answer the important questions and you also gave answers to questions I didn't ask because you were too busy trying to counter a point I didn't make (which seems to be a common theme with your posts).

What question do you think I did not answer?

Putin told the world that if you try and stop them from invading other countries with military force, they may end up using nukes and kill a lot of people.

But, I am sure you will keep deflecting. You are wrong, and its probably pretty hard to admit for you it seems.

 

[ivwshane]

What question do you think I did not answer?

Putin told the world that if you try and stop them from invading other countries with military force, they may end up using nukes and kill a lot of people.

But, I am sure you will keep deflecting. You are wrong, and its probably pretty hard to admit for you it seems.

You are lying. He made the comment in a propaganda documentary.

 

[ivwshane]

His point is he doesn't believe they are threats just because he doesn't believe it will happen.

Much easier to say while typing on a keyboard thousands of miles away from Moscow, than if you are a resident of a former Eastern Bloc nation facing an increasingly hostile ethnic Russian population emboldened by propaganda and a belief of minimal physical retaliation due to Russia's nuclear capabilities.

Like I said, fear makes people irrational. If Putin were to use a nuclear weapon on any country he wants to reincorporate, not only would he be destroying the land itself but the backlash and blowback would hinder his cause way more than simply continuing what he's currently doing. Putins threat isn't his use of nukes, it's his army.

 

[realibrad]

You are lying. He made the comment in a propaganda documentary.

How am I lying? He made the statement in a documentary and other times. Don't forget the link I posted from CNN. My link had nothing to do with said documentary. You may have forgotten that.

But hey, how about this quote.

“I do not think that the Danes fully understand the consequences if Denmark joins the US-led missile defence shield. If that happens, Danish warships become targets for Russian nuclear missiles.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ies-to-join-nato-defence-shield-10125529.html

Still losing ground on this. But it seems likely you will keep on digging.

 

[ivwshane]

First off moron, your cnn link was already discussed, it was a comment made during a documentary at a youth forum, it was pure propaganda.

How am I lying? He made the statement in a documentary and other times. Don't forget the link I posted from CNN. My link had nothing to do with said documentary. You may have forgotten that.

But hey, how about this quote.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ies-to-join-nato-defence-shield-10125529.html

Still losing ground on this. But it seems likely you will keep on digging.

That last one is actually a threat, congrats! You managed to post a real threat that was made less than a day ago. When was my comment made? Oh over a day ago?



And for the record, I still believe Russia's latest threat is still pure bullshit but that's just my opinion.

 

[realibrad]

First off moron, your cnn link was already discussed, it was a comment made during a documentary at a youth forum, it was pure propaganda.




That last one is actually a threat, congrats! You managed to post a real threat that was made less than a day ago. When was my comment made? Oh over a day ago?



And for the record, I still believe Russia's latest threat is still pure bullshit but that's just my opinion.

Either you have a horrible memory, or you are trying to make shit up. The CNN link (http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/29/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1) had nothing to do with the documentary. He did make a threat on the documentary, and another threat at a youth forum. And another threat as I posted before.

Post 7 by you.

Absolutely nothing would change.

Countries don't get nukes to bully other countries, they get nukes to stop other countries from bullying them or they get them as a deterrent.

Iran with nukes scares the gullible and hinders the progress of neo cons.

Iran is nothing like the countries that surround it (in terms of instability and craziness).

Russia is using its nukes to stop other countries from stopping Russian bullying.

Post 14 by you.

No you don't. No country is threatening nukes.

Russia has and continues to threaten nukes.

All your posts are still up. You seem to think that Putin is bluffing, and he might very well be. The thing about bluffing, is that when it comes to something as serious as this, you cant just call him and and hope you are right. Putin has invaded Georgia, and the Ukraine. He has ordered the assassination of media and political figures. Putin has shown that he is willing to get his hands dirty and do terrible things. You can go on and on about him, and you get a pretty clear picture that he is not a nice guy. It does not matter how much shit the US has done, because the point is that Putin using his nukes is simply too risky. The reason MAD works is because of the risk that it just might happen.

The main point is that you seem to believe bluffing and threatening are somehow mutually exclusive, and they are not. You can bluff with a threat. I agree that Putin using his nukes is as likely as China using theirs. The thing is that neither has a chance of zero.

 

[ivwshane]

Holy fuck you stupid fuck!

Don't mess with Russia.

That was President Vladimir Putin's message on Friday, the same day a British government source claimed that Russian troops had significantly ratcheted up their military incursion into Ukraine.

Moscow doesn't want or intend to wade into any "large-scale conflicts," Putin insisted at a youth forum, state-run ITAR-Tass reported. A few breaths later, he made the point that Russia is "strengthening our nuclear deterrence forces and our armed forces," making them more efficient and modernized.

"I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful nuclear nations," the President said. "This is a reality, not just words."

He later warned, "We must always be ready to repel any aggression against Russia and (potential enemies) should be aware ... it is better not to come against Russia as regards a possible armed conflict."

The comments came the same day that Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused NATO of using "images from computer games" to -- in his view -- falsely make the case that Russian troops are in Ukraine. Lavrov said "hiding the evidence is an outstanding characteristic of the U.S. and many EU countries" with regard to Ukraine.

Just how many youth forums do you think he speaks at? We have a world leader, former KGB, propagandist, speaking at a youth forum in front of a camera that was shooting a video about Russia taking back Crimea.

If you don't think that wasn't pure propaganda then you are a bigger dumbass than I thought!

Either you have a horrible memory, or you are trying to make shit up. The CNN link (http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/29/world/europe/ukraine-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t1) had nothing to do with the documentary. He did make a threat on the documentary, and another threat at a youth forum. And another threat as I posted before.

Post 7 by you.



Russia is using its nukes to stop other countries from stopping Russian bullying.

Post 14 by you.


Russia has and continues to threaten nukes.

All your posts are still up. You seem to think that Putin is bluffing, and he might very well be. The thing about bluffing, is that when it comes to something as serious as this, you cant just call him and and hope you are right. Putin has invaded Georgia, and the Ukraine. He has ordered the assassination of media and political figures. Putin has shown that he is willing to get his hands dirty and do terrible things. You can go on and on about him, and you get a pretty clear picture that he is not a nice guy. It does not matter how much shit the US has done, because the point is that Putin using his nukes is simply too risky. The reason MAD works is because of the risk that it just might happen. Yeah no shit, which is why Russia won't do anything that would warrant such a response by the US, because the same fear you think the US should have of Russia is the same fear Russia has about us, a point you failed to get in my previous post.

The main point is that you seem to believe bluffing and threatening are somehow mutually exclusive, and they are not. You can bluff with a threat. I agree that Putin using his nukes is as likely as China using theirs. The thing is that neither has a chance of zero.

He most certainly is bluffing as evident by the fact that he hasn't used nukes, ever! Which makes his threats completely hollow! And yeah, hallow threats don't carry a lot of weight, if you can't see the difference then I now know what kind of idiots keep voting for neo cons.

 

[cubby1223]

ivwshane - let it go.

Not since WWII has there been a military power pushing in on Moscow to even test the will to use nuclear weapons. In fact, no nuclear power has ever been tested in such ways Putin is threatening, to draw statistical data from. 0 uses based on 0 data points. What is the value of 0/0?

ivwshane, the fault in your logic is you are humanizing countries, describing them as if they are a singular person with feelings and behaviors that mimic a sane, rational individual. In reality it breaks down to who specifically in Russia is in control of launching such weapons, and do those people care about possible retaliation, or calculate the rewards as outweighing the risks for themselves personally? The world is defined by self-interest more than anything else. What is the self-interest of the individuals in control?

Then as per the thread subject, it comes around to the situation in Iran, where we have all around people radicalized in their beliefs willing to fight in very brutal ways with little regard to their personal safety, personal longevity. Ethnic groups that passionately hate each other and are not shy at being violent about it. History does suggest those with nuclear weapons are not retaliated upon. Makes it a lot easier to be aggressive with people you don't like.

If you believe no nation will ever detonate a nuclear weapon against an enemy, just accept that it is your subjective OPINION and everyone has the right to disagree with your subjective OPINION. And then let it go.

You are insulting people based more on your personal gut feelings, than on any statistical data out there.

 

[ivwshane]

ivwshane - let it go.

Not since WWII has there been a military power pushing in on Moscow to even test the will to use nuclear weapons. In fact, no nuclear power has ever been tested in such ways Putin is threatening, to draw statistical data from. 0 uses based on 0 data points. What is the value of 0/0?

ivwshane, the fault in your logic is you are humanizing countries, describing them as if they are a singular person with feelings and behaviors that mimic a sane, rational individual. In reality it breaks down to who specifically in Russia is in control of launching such weapons, and do those people care about possible retaliation, or calculate the rewards as outweighing the risks for themselves personally? The world is defined by self-interest more than anything else. What is the self-interest of the individuals in control?

Then as per the thread subject, it comes around to the situation in Iran, where we have all around people radicalized in their beliefs willing to fight in very brutal ways with little regard to their personal safety, personal longevity. Ethnic groups that passionately hate each other and are not shy at being violent about it. History does suggest those with nuclear weapons are not retaliated upon. Makes it a lot easier to be aggressive with people you don't like.

If you believe no nation will ever detonate a nuclear weapon against an enemy, just accept that it is your subjective OPINION and everyone has the right to disagree with your subjective OPINION. And then let it go.

You are insulting people based more on your personal gut feelings, than on any statistical data out there.

The bolded part isn't what I believe.

Since the rest of your post is opinion, it's not right nor wrong, I just don't see the world the same way you do regarding Iran (especially Iran) and russia.

We will have to agree to disagree.