Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is my rough decision tree about this whole situation.
Firstly, I will say that you cannot stop a country completely from getting a Nuke. You can only delay them from doing so. A nuke is like any scientific progress, it will proliferate over time...you can only control how fast or slow. So talking in absolutes is disingenuous. If a country does not want a nuke, it either doesn't actively want one or it is not in the right stage of development (both are variables can change over time on a long enough timescale).
That said, in a twisted way, the American's being allied with Israel and actively trying to stop Iran from getting a nuke through conventional and covert means is really the only thing stopping from nukes being set off in warfare for the first time in 70 years. in a weird way the us is protecting iran.
IF Iran is on the verge of getting a nuke, Israel will place a call to the US asking 'are you with us'. IF we said 'no', Israel would use any means necessary (it's own nuclear arsenal) to defeat Iran. So they question becomes, are you willing for Israel to nuke iran in a comprehensive manner. I believe current US policy takes this highly into consideration and it is not all about 'being on israel's side'. It is about controlling the leash on them and the use of nukes in warfare in that region.
The chinese don't care about proliferation and while the Russians do somewhat, it is no where near our fervor for non-proliferation. The relationship with India should be bolstered on this front, but they only too recently felt the ire from the west when they decided to get a nuke 40 years ago so in a way they sympathetic to Iran's position since India was in similar shoes not too long ago.
Therefore, we will be almost alone on this. If Iran did get a nuke, it would set off an arms race in the middle east with the Saudi's wanting one and whoever else in that region.
If you do not wish for iran to have a nuke, you must be willing to deploy a large conventional force a la gulf war 1, with boots on the ground and suffer casualities.
The american public needs to weigh up essentially choices...is lots of american blood and treasure (at a time we are war weary and poor economically) worth non-proliferation/'saving' iran from massive nuclear destruction at the hands of israel.
I would be pleased if iran developed nuclear weapons and a deployment system. It would keep us from wasting our money on another unwinnable war. If they used the threat to establish another Persian Empire I could care less. Splitting Arabia between the Persians and the Turks would give all sides what they deseve.
I cannot argue with jtur88's position. It is time the countries of the Middle East attended to their own affairs without our help or hinderance.
In principle I agree. However, they have something we are in need of, oil. For that reason I believe we are interested in that part of the world affairs.
Now, my choice would be for us to be able to drill on our own resources but environmental organization have been very successful in pushing for laws against it. As long as we cannot tap our own resources, we are at the mercy of those countries out there.
There is a saying I read a long time ago:
Friendship binds men but national interests binds countries.
Our national interesets, in this case source of energy, are affected by the oill reserves in those countries and that makes it necessary to monitor their actions which could affect us. Take care.
How did Iranians get their nuclear technology in the first place? One SOB from Pakistan provided it to them. Did Pakistan need nuclear weapons? No, they need food and other basics, but Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (Benazir's father) in the 70s, decided that Pakistanis will eat grass, because they need a little bomb first.
Good grief! India attacked Pakistan in 1971, wasn't that reason enough to obtain nuclear weapons, in addition to the Soviets having invaded their neighbors to the north, Afghanistan? Fearing Bhutto was going to acquire nuclear weapons, we stupidly supported anti-democracy, vicious military leader, Zia, all thru the Reagan years, in hopes they wouldn't develop nuclear weapons, and in the end of all that waste of $ funneled to Pakistan, they got them anyway!
Pakistan has no greater love for Israel than Iran, and they're equally capable, and more capable with an alliance with Iran, of reducing Israel to ashes, if need be!
I personally think there is a simple solution to the Iran problem.
Stop worrying about whether Iran develops a nuclear bomb. However, make it clear that if they do and if they ever use it against Israel or any other country that we will blow every man, woman, and child in that country off the face of the earth.
I personally think there is a simple solution to the Iran problem.
Stop worrying about whether Iran develops a nuclear bomb. However, make it clear that if they do and if they ever use it against Israel or any other country that we will blow every man, woman, and child in that country off the face of the earth.
Why not just worry about this country. The Swiss have done very well for centuries with that philosophy. Iran needs nuclear weapons just as any person who fears an attack needs a gun.
Why not just worry about this country. The Swiss have done very well for centuries with that philosophy. Iran needs nuclear weapons just as any person who fears an attack needs a gun.
The problem is, that Israel is threatening a preemptive attack to prevent nuclear proliferation in Iran. Netenyahu made that clear. Using your exmaple it's sort of like taking out the gun dealer to prevent the person in fear from ever obtaining the gun in the first place. That preemptive attack will destablize the mid-east and break open a hornet's nest of other problems. I think the U.S. is involved now to prevent Israel from having to go that extra mile.
I think it really is for the best that the theocrats in Iran have the bomb. What will be will be. So what if they use it? After all the atomic tests accidents and Hiroshima / Nagasaki we're all still here and doing just fine. Let the Iranian mullahs take charge in the middle east. They’ll be no more successful at it now or in the future than they were millennia ago.
I might be missing something here, but I just can't understand why we don't unleash Israel on Iran. It would seem to be a win-win situation: Israel--our lone ally in that region--would be tickled pick to get the chance to use some of their vast store of military hardware--and fine air force--against a foe that has on more than one occasion admitted they want Israel destroyed. Plus, we would get ride of the problem of a crazed, theocratic and unstble government posessing nuclear arms, without having to dirty our hands.
The U.S. checks one more worrisome threat off our list; Israel gets to flex its collective muscle and vanquish a loathsome foe; Iran's nuke threat is erased. Where's the downside?
A Timeline of Warnings About an Iranian Nuclear Threat, 1979-2011
Photo: Vahid Salemi/AP/File
"The reactor building of Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant is seen in this 2005 file photo."
Quote:
For more than quarter of a century Western officials have claimed repeatedly that Iran is close to joining the nuclear club. Such a result is always declared "unacceptable" and a possible reason for military action, with "all options on the table" to prevent upsetting the Mideast strategic balance dominated by the US and Israel.
And yet, those predictions have time and again come and gone. This chronicle of past predictions lends historical perspective to today’s rhetoric about Iran.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A Timeline of Warnings About an Iranian Nuclear Threat, 1979-2011
