Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What If Iran Were To Sell Their Nuclear Weapons?  
User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6785 posts, RR: 34
Posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2576 times:

Follow my hypothesis here for a moment if you would.

Iran is nuclear and they’ve been pursuing dual-track nuclear energy and weapons for some time. They have or soon will have launch capability to lob a 2000 lb 15-kiloton or so warhead if they choose to.

I think Imanutjob is too much of a glory hound to actually USE them preemptively at present time (not that he wouldn’t) because he wants the spotlight and wants leverage. What better leverage than to SELL those assets to other states? So to my way of thinking, a nuclear Iran is a bad thing not solely because THEY have them, but because they might move them somewhere else.

So in the speculation of what to do about Iran, I ask you this:

What if they were to sell one to Hugo Chavez, for instance? What then becomes the strategic response?

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1628 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2568 times:

They are one of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism.
This is one of the major problems with them obtaining any sort of advancement.
It is why I cant believe that the west is just throwing empty words at them and stupid sanctions that really wont do anything
.
Maybe soon enough people are going to wake up. For one, Israel will not wait to be attacked.

If there is ever a war worth waging, it must this one. Iran with its current nutjob leaders is a threat not just to Israel, but to the whole world.



Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2567 times:



Quoting Slider (Thread starter):
So in the speculation of what to do about Iran, I ask you this:

Bottom line: because of the possibilities you suggest as well as the destabilization of the Gulf that will result in nuclear proliferation on the Straight of Hormuz, their current efforts can not be allowed to continue, whether they are completely strangled economically or whether strategic bombing of their development sites is carried out. They will realize this soon enough - my only fear is that military action will once and for all end the fledgling reform movement there.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2556 times:



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 2):
their current efforts can not be allowed to continue

 checkmark  This is becoming a serious issue that we can no longer ignore.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 2):
my only fear is that military action will once and for all end the fledgling reform movement there.

The Gulf War actually helped spark a rebellion in Iraq. I was watching a TV show a while back where one of the anti-Sadaam people said essentially that they were trying to hold out for assistance from the Americans that never came.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineJFKMan From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 596 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2546 times:

We would be in deep trouble. This is one of my main worries.


US / AA - JFK / TPA
User currently offlineSpringbok747 From Australia, joined Nov 2004, 4387 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2531 times:

Didn't Imanutjob meet with Zardari (president of Pakistan) recently? Who knows what they discussed? Maybe Pakistan is also 'sharing' its nuclear abilities? They definitely showed that sanctions do not work..as the Iranians are dispatching diplomatic missions to China, central Asia and Venezuela and stockpiling fuel and gas in case of winter shortages.

Iran has great influence among Middle East muslim countries. Iraq is shiite muslim like Iran and therefore natural if uneasy allies. There is no point in Iran harbouring ambitions to invade its neighbours. Such imperial ambitions have already ruined the US, the UK and NATO countries that have ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The days of imperialism are over.

Israel may get away with a single surprise strike against Iran. Israel has no ability to fight a protracted war. Israel cannot conduct a ground war over that distance. In an aerial war Israel will have to overfly Jordan, Syria and Iraq to strike Iran, or overfly Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf to do the same. That means violating the sovereignty of several countries wihich will provide a perfect excuse for those countries and every other muslim country in the middle east and in the world to join forces to destroy Israel once and for all. Saudi Arabia cannot remain neutral and must join the muslim side lest their own government's survival be at risk. Israel then will know the meaning of real paranoia. For the rest of the world it is easy enough for Iran to scuttle a few supertankers in the Persian Gulf and something like half the world's supply of oil will be bottled up. The economies of industrialized countries of the West, including the US will grind to a halt. Further stress may ruin the West for decades during which time the rest of the world will catch up whereby whatever technological lead the West may have now will lose their relevance.

And then there are the so-called sanctions. It didn't work before and it won't work now. Empty threats only degrade the standing of the parties making the threats. And China gets to reap the rewards.



אני תומך בישראל
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7693 posts, RR: 21
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2529 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Slider (Thread starter):
Imanutjob



Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 5):
Imanutjob

Ahmadinejad.

I don't particularly like the guy either, but calling him that doesn't further the reasoned argument against his policy one little bit.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineMBMBOS From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2517 times:

It seems we've had several posts recently that are designed to justify starting a war with Iran; Ahmadinejad is crazy, Iranian politicians are not rational, Iran will sell nukes to terrorists, Iran will "wipe Israel off the map" (by the way Ahmadinajad never said that), a nuclear Iran will upset the balance of power in the Middle East, Iran is building nuclear weapons (which has not yet been proven), this is a war of religions whether we like it or not...and the list goes on.

We're back to fear mongering and hysteria. We're back to painting a nation and a people as irrational and evil as a way to feel justified for attacking and possibly killing in huge numbers, all in the name of self defense.

I am concerned that neocons are more concerned about maintaining and propagating their ideology than actually maintaining peace and finding common ground with nations that are very different culturally and politically.

The subject of this thread seems particularly contrived. We're going to justify bombing nuclear and military facilities based on a "what if"? Why are we even discussing this when we haven't even begun to exercise other options? There is a whole lot of potential for turning things around in our relations with Iran. Looks like a majority of the people don't care for the mullahs in power. Based on some polling, the majority would happily give up their isotopes for open trading with the West. It won't be easy and nobody is saying it would be. But I think we need to focus on these things instead of threatening war at every turn.

There's such a thing as self-fulfilling prophecy. Keep rattling the sabers and, sure enough, you'll end up with war.


User currently offlineSpringbok747 From Australia, joined Nov 2004, 4387 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2505 times:



Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 7):
Iran will "wipe Israel off the map" (by the way Ahmadinajad never said that)

Ahmadinejad's phrase was " بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود " according to the text published on the President's Office's website, and was a quote of Ayatollah Khomeini. Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly, as "be eliminated from the pages of history."

http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Pa...e=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP101305


TEHRAN (AFP) — Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday called Israel a "stinking corpse" which is doomed to disappear as the Jewish state celebrated its 60th anniversary.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ix-viVGAnfS1RHJGzZHSGjnzDIXg

Clearly he is someone who wants Israel gone, i.e. 'off the map'. He may have not said those words directly but his intentions are clear.



אני תומך בישראל
User currently offlineUs330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3867 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2486 times:



Quoting Slider (Thread starter):
So to my way of thinking, a nuclear Iran is a bad thing not solely because THEY have them, but because they might move them somewhere else.

So in the speculation of what to do about Iran, I ask you this:

What if they were to sell one to Hugo Chavez, for instance? What then becomes the strategic response?

You aren't coming out of left field. That topic is on a lot of people's minds--the fear that Iran could become the A.Q. Khan for any militia or terrorist group, and that nuclear weapons could proliferate worldwide.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 2):
Bottom line: because of the possibilities you suggest as well as the destabilization of the Gulf that will result in nuclear proliferation on the Straight of Hormuz, their current efforts can not be allowed to continue, whether they are completely strangled economically or whether strategic bombing of their development sites is carried out. They will realize this soon enough - my only fear is that military action will once and for all end the fledgling reform movement there.


 checkmark  Very good summary

Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 5):
Iran has great influence among Middle East muslim countries. Iraq is shiite muslim like Iran and therefore natural if uneasy allies. There is no point in Iran harbouring ambitions to invade its neighbours..

Some Iraqis hate Iranians, especially after the Iran-Iraq war.
Otherwise, your analysis couldn't be further from the truth. The only two parties that Iran has great influence with in the Middle East is Syria and Hezbollah.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia are huge rivals with Iran (In fact, Egypt and Iran only recently--within the past several years--renewed relations since the Islamic Revolution), and despise Ahmadinejad--both see Iran acquiring nuclear weapons as existential threats to their states as well. The Gulf States like Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar also see Iran as threat to their existence. Same with Jordan.

Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 5):
Israel may get away with a single surprise strike against Iran. Israel has no ability to fight a protracted war. Israel cannot conduct a ground war over that distance. In an aerial war Israel will have to overfly Jordan, Syria and Iraq to strike Iran, or overfly Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf to do the same. That means violating the sovereignty of several countries wihich will provide a perfect excuse for those countries and every other muslim country in the middle east and in the world to join forces to destroy Israel once and for all. Saudi Arabia cannot remain neutral and must join the muslim side lest their own government's survival be at risk.

You are right about Israel's lack of ability to fight a protracted war with Iran.

In regards to the airspace issue, there was a report in the London Times that Saudi Arabia would be willing to look the other way if Israeli aircraft were to use Saudi airspace to carry out an attack on Iran's nuclear facility.
Lacking an ability of their own to carry out an effective surgical strike, the Saudis, Gulf States, Egyptians, and Jordanians are all looking to Israel to do their dirty work for them.
It's a classic case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19411 posts, RR: 58
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2467 times:



Quoting Slider (Thread starter):

What if they were to sell one to Hugo Chavez, for instance? What then becomes the strategic response?

Hopefully to find and destroy whatever transport is carrying it.


User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2444 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2460 times:



Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 7):
It seems we've had several posts recently that are designed to justify starting a war with Iran

 checkmark  Flashback to 8 years ago with Iraq.

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 7):
Ahmadinejad is crazy

So was Saddam

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 7):
Iranian politicians are not rational

Same as Saddam & his cronies

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 7):
Iran will sell nukes to terrorists

Same was said about Iraq

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 7):
a nuclear Iran will upset the balance of power in the Middle East

Same was said about Iraq

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 7):
Iran is building nuclear weapons (which has not yet been proven),

Same was said about Iraq.

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 7):
We're back to fear mongering and hysteria. We're back to painting a nation and a people as irrational and evil as a way to feel justified for attacking and possibly killing in huge numbers, all in the name of self defense.

And look where the west are with Iraq - do we really have such short memories and think we could be any more successful in Iran?? Lets wait and see if Iran have any teeth in their mouth or they just spout hot air and let them show their cards and make the first move. However mad they are, they know full well any false move with nukes will result in their annihilation. I think they are achieving exactly what they want to achieve - let the world live in terror at idle threats.



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2455 times:



Quoting Slider (Thread starter):
What If Iran Were To Sell Their Nuclear Weapons?

This thread title is false pro-war propaganda.

Mohamed ElBaradei said Sept. 30 that there was "no credible evidence" that Iran was developing nuclear weapons.


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6785 posts, RR: 34
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2413 times:



Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 5):
definitely showed that sanctions do not work..

Agreed—I think among the majority of us here, as well as public opinion, the proof clearly exists that sanctions are BS. Why it’s still even in the debate, beyond mere political posturing and rhetoric, is beyond me.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 6):
Ahmadinejad.

I don't particularly like the guy either, but calling him that doesn't further the reasoned argument against his policy one little bit.

Lighten up Francis. He’s a kook. We can all wax intellectually whilst engaging in a comical send-up of his name. I think everyone realizes the gravity of the situation.

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 7):
We're back to fear mongering and hysteria. We're back to painting a nation and a people as irrational and evil as a way to feel justified for attacking and possibly killing in huge numbers, all in the name of self defense.

Whoa. Hold on a second there. No, this isn’t fearmongering and there’s certainly no hysteria. In reading the responses in this thread, I see some good analysis, some rational thoughts and no one freaking out saying that we should immediately preemptively do something. The leader is irrational. He’s a nut job. Iran has some people looking for reform but they have no voice…no one’s saying we should nuke them out of existence, so that claptrap won’t fly.

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 7):
There's such a thing as self-fulfilling prophecy. Keep rattling the sabers and, sure enough, you'll end up with war.

I understand where you come from on this, but disagree. I think discussing the parsing through contingencies, not to mention preparing for them, is not only acceptable but very necessary. The best way to keep the peace is to prepare for war…peace through strength. History is the ruler here. I’d rather have the sabre at my side than stand there naked for some rogue like Imanutjob to do what he wishes unimpeded.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 10):
Hopefully to find and destroy whatever transport is carrying it.

That’s a good point Doc…that’s kind of what I was thinking. To the root question posited in this thread, I think if Iran moves something, there must be absolutely every effort taken to prevent it from reaching the recipient, NO MATTER who it is. If it happens to be a destination in our hemisphere, it’s even more imperative.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 12):
This thread title is false pro-war propaganda.

Mohamed ElBaradei said Sept. 30 that there was "no credible evidence" that Iran was developing nuclear weapons.

LMAO!!! Keep your head in the sand.

Britain, France, Netherlands, Japan, US and Israel have all told ElBaradei what’s going on and he’s ignored it. His own report of August 28 states that he possesses substantial intelligence that confirms what Iran is doing (paragraphs 18 and 20) but he cannot answer IAEA inquiries nor confront Iran about it. According to DEBKA, that constitutes almost diplomatic fraud. He’s been a partial compromised Iran apologist (Bolton was absolutely right) and has no credibility whatsoever. If the IAEA cannot even be trusted to identify and ferret out the truth, then it will in fact be up to the other nations to take action.

To MBMBOS’s point, THAT’s the self-fulfilling prophecy—and another failure of so-called internationalism before our very eyes.


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6785 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2327 times:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/04/content_12181647.htm

ElBaradei, public enemy #1 and aider and abettor to rogue nuclear nations.

Claims Israel is the greatest nuclear threat in the Middle East. I am not an Israel apologist, but they haven’t directly overtly threatened anyone and hardly have used their weapons program to advance any agenda of taking over anything other than for their own defense. This whole thing will get out of hand.

Iran is not being held accountable and Baradei can only point fingers at Israel? Really? Can he make his bias any less transparent?


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2279 times:



Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 7):
Iran will "wipe Israel off the map" (by the way Ahmadinajad never said that)



Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 8):
The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly, as "be eliminated from the pages of history."

Quite so, but that does not invalidate what MBMBOS writes. If you look at the demography of Israel + Palestine, and the rate at which Israel is avoiding a two state solution, it will end up as a one state solution and unless there really is genocide, or an even more severe form of apartheid, then Ahmad's "prediction" will prove to be the case, Israel WILL cease to exist, at least as a Jewish state.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 11):
And look where the west are with Iraq - do we really have such short memories and think we could be any more successful in Iran??

Nice post, much better argued than the "Iran wants nuclear weapons to attack all and sundry" school of thought.

Quoting Slider (Reply 13):
The leader is irrational. He's a nut job.

Ahmad might be irrational (probably not according to his lights and I dare say he would think you are tad irrational too) but more to the point, he is NOT the leader, he is President, why do you keep getting confused? As to his irrationality, just because someone does not think the same way as you does not immediately mean they are irrational. A little more analysis and fewer poorly supported assertions would be nice. Basically, the west knows sod all about Iran. Or to be more exact, most of what it knows comes from emigres who would probably like the Shah back. Remember when intell came from a similar group of folk re Iraq, for example the famous Curve-Ball? He did a really good job.

Quoting Slider (Reply 14):
ElBaradei, public enemy #1 and aider and abettor to rogue nuclear nations.

Just what is your evidence for this extraordinary assertion?

Not only do you not know what is actually going on in Iran courtesy of sanctions and lack of normalized relations, but you traduce the work of the UN. Remember your POTUS did a job on Hans Blix. Does this ring a bell?

Blix's statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the George W. Bush administration, [6] and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the US and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Ultimately, no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were found. [

From Wiki


User currently offlineCaliatenza From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2263 times:

The problem with Iran is that while the poeple want the mullahs and the thugs gone...we cant help them because the US and the west cant overtly help the opposition. For all of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad crazy rantings...he's not really teh one in power. He's actually just kinda a figurehead. Iran isnt stupid..well at least i dont hope so. They know that if they launch something toward Israel...Israel will counterattack or even blow that missle straight outta the sky.

User currently offlineBlackprojects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 756 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2258 times:

Eventually Iran will do something Stupid and a lot of People Will get removed from this Planet in one way or another but Shooting a Nuclear Armed Missile at The Mount of the Rock would just Piss of the rest of the Muslim states instead of making them jump for joy.

So Iran"s nutter has to figure out what where and when and by the time he figures that out the ABL-1s could be ready and his Missiles will get whats coming to them!.


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6785 posts, RR: 34
Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2247 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 15):
As to his irrationality, just because someone does not think the same way as you does not immediately mean they are irrational.

Are you condoning his irrationality then?


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2238 times:



Quoting Slider (Reply 14):

Claims Israel is the greatest nuclear threat in the Middle East. I am not an Israel apologist, but they haven’t directly overtly threatened anyone and hardly have used their weapons program to advance any agenda of taking over anything other than for their own defense. This whole thing will get out of hand.

Israel has 400+ nuclear weapons, refuses to sign and abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (unlike Iran), and has overtly threatened Iran for years--they want the US to take Iran down for them so that they will be the most powerful nation in the Middle East without any doubt about their status.

Israel IS the greatest nuclear threat in the Middle East because they're the only with a substantial amount of nukes AND the means to deliver them.


User currently offlineBlackProjects From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 756 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2222 times:

Funny bit is who would you Trust not to Turn a Country in the Middle east into a Smoking Area of semi Molten glass Iran or Israel?

The Israelis have had the Bomb for Decades yet have never tried to use it not Once they had a think about it when Saddam was Lobbing Scuds at them but once Patriots showed up no use.

Iran's main Aim is the Removal of Israel from the pages of History as in Exterminating the Country and it"s people..

So if a Shooting war Starts between the Two it could be very Nasty for any one Caught in the middle IRAQ get some Hard hats and extra strong Sun Block!!


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21525 posts, RR: 55
Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2217 times:



Quoting Flanker (Reply 1):
If there is ever a war worth waging, it must this one.

I remember hearing that before the invasion of Iraq. To hear it applied again to Iran is troubling, though not entirely surprising.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2206 times:



Quoting MD-90 (Reply 19):

Israel has 400+ nuclear weapons, refuses to sign and abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (unlike Iran), and has overtly threatened Iran for years--they want the US to take Iran down for them so that they will be the most powerful nation in the Middle East without any doubt about their status.

And now Iran is, by several countries' estimation, violating the NNPT they are signatory to. As sovereign states, non-signatories technically can develop whatever they want. Signatories give up their sovereign powers to develop nuclear weapons technology - since I don't see powerplants popping up all over the country, there's only one reasonable explanation for the escalation in Iran's nuclear development. Take the blinders off for just a moment.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 19):

Israel IS the greatest nuclear threat in the Middle East because they're the only with a substantial amount of nukes AND the means to deliver them.

I'm by no means a fan of modern Israeli governments, nor do I support continued US donations to their one-legged cause, but this is nothing short of a crazy statement. There's a big difference between defense, deterrence and outward aggression.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8502 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2205 times:



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 22):
Signatories give up their sovereign powers to develop nuclear weapons technology - since I don't see powerplants popping up all over the country, there's only one reasonable explanation for the escalation in Iran's nuclear development.

Iran has not yet been proven to be developing nuclear weapons. And the reason why nuclear plants aren't popping up all over Iran is because they're expensive and Iranians don't have that much experience with them. Doesn't that make more sense than a nuclear conspiracy?

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 22):
I'm by no means a fan of modern Israeli governments, nor do I support continued US donations to their one-legged cause, but this is nothing short of a crazy statement.

If Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons, then how can they be a nuclear threat?


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8021 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2203 times:



Quoting MD-90 (Reply 23):
Iran has not yet been proven to be developing nuclear weapons. And the reason why nuclear plants aren't popping up all over Iran is because they're expensive and Iranians don't have that much experience with them. Doesn't that make more sense than a nuclear conspiracy?

Can you prove that they don't? Can you prove that their current efforts won't have lasting effects on the balance of power in the Gulf, to say nothing of global economic concerns for the next several years? If it's so untrue why are their neighbors so concerned??



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
25 Baroque : No I am asking you to demonstrate that he lacks a rational cause for what he does. You (and I) have no real basis for assessing most of what he does.
26 Slider : You cannot apply logic to the guy at all, frankly. This is someone (and this is a mistake the Western world makes too often and a fundamental misunde
27 ME AVN FAN : Sure. But for the time being still developing nuclear technology for civilian use. Even if you do not believe Ayatollahs (doubts justified indeed), t
28 Connies4ever : Bushehr. Bushehr. Look at a map. The Russians are building it and will supply the 1st charge of fuel (and take back the spent remains). The centrifug
29 MD-90 : Sounds to me more like an East German in 1980 hoping that the USSR would collapse rather than someone threatening to "wipe Israel off the map." Ahmad
30 Baroque : I was hoping someone would do the reply. So thanks MAF and Connies, better than I could have done. Yes, that is so Connies, but so far most systems l
31 LY772 : Hi everybody, I had a bad feeling when I clicked on this topic. Something told me that if I read this topic I would want to respond. I can get very ma
32 Slider : Clearly, Ahmedinajad is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. Great post, BTW!
33 Post contains images ME AVN FAN : Israel is not in a "conflict" with Iran. And what would happen if Iran called for the destruction of Great Britain ? The same as what happened when K
34 Par13del : Except the EU is the leading negotiator for the west on Iran, from GWB last days in office, you really believe that the EU will initiate or order the
35 Post contains links Baroque : Quite possibly/probably true, but don't forget it cuts both ways, like a two edged sword so that it is probably impossible to wipe out the Palestinia
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What If A.Net Were A City? Your Involvment? posted Thu Oct 5 2006 09:08:02 by JetsGo
What If There Were No Religions In The World posted Sat Sep 30 2006 08:58:22 by EK156
US To Build New Nuclear Weapons posted Wed Jun 14 2006 15:03:26 by RichardPrice
If You Were To Run For President... posted Tue Oct 4 2005 09:17:46 by Tbar220
What Would You Do If You Were Given $20k? posted Tue Sep 1 2009 22:03:42 by YVRLTN
If Nuclear Weapons Weren't Radioactive? posted Mon Dec 24 2007 17:23:04 by Lehpron
What Would You Do If You Were A Dictator? posted Thu Sep 21 2006 20:58:29 by Malmoaviation
The "What If" Question - Iran Nukes Israel.. posted Thu Jul 27 2006 11:51:25 by EA CO AS
If Pakistan Have Nuclear Weapons, Why... posted Tue Jun 20 2006 17:18:46 by Bofredrik
Iran's Threat To US Is Financial, Not Nuclear posted Wed May 17 2006 17:07:45 by Ilikeyyc