PDA

View Full Version : Armageddon


Hazzle
01-06-2006, 10:40 PM
No, not the movie. Iran. Nuclear power. Nuclear weapons. Who knows?

Who here thinks that if diplomacy fails war is an option? Who here is opposed to a war on any ground, and doesn't care if Iran is admitting to developing nuclear technology that could very easily be used to build a warhead?

Just curious to know what our thoughts are on the impending end of the world. And stuff. It's not exactly important or anything...

Me, I say we bomb the bejesus out of the country and pick up the pieces later.

Digital_Ice
01-06-2006, 11:05 PM
while i do not condone iran having WMD... i do think the americans have no right to say iran cant build them, when the US has a huuuuuuge stockpile. they should get rid of theirs, then they would have some ground at which to tell others not to build them.

calereneau
01-06-2006, 11:16 PM
Typically I would bust out the whole "Well, America doesn't start irrational wars" argument" but....ummm....well, yeah.

But Iran is different. Iran is run by a extreme Islamist fundamentalist who would have no problem on dropping some nuclear whoopass on Israel or their allies. When "Death to Israel!" is your campaign slogan, idk....maybe we should have been on this one a while back. You know....rather than sending our marines in to slaughter innocent civilians and then make human pyramids out of them.

Something needs to be done. If diplomacy doesn't work then America, Britain, and anyone else who supports Israel has no choice but to take military action. Either that or just let Israel fend for itself and pull the hell out of that entire region.

Personally, I'm for that last idea.

Hazzle
02-06-2006, 08:15 AM
Iran is massively extremist. And I wouldn't worry about it just being Israel, because once they've nuked Israel expect them to share the technology with Hamas and Al Queda and any other organisation hellbent on destroying the "Christo-zionist" conspiracy. Iran wants the entire world to be Muslim, let's not forget.

And Digi, that's such a cliched and completely empty argument. If America got rid of theirs they'd be at risk from other nations that possess them. Let alone new nations that develop them. One of the most convincing ways to stop another country developing nukes is the fact that you can out-nuke them.

MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is a massively crucial tool, and in the case of Iran, I'm not sure how "mutual" it would be. If you can nuke a country that doesn't have nukes, they have a very big incentive to shut up and listen. Machiavelli once said that the purpose of war was peace, and I agree.

The only way to achieve peace is warfare. The idea should be to weaken a country to the point where it cannot war again, and will then become a peaceful nation. If you do this with every single potentially dangerous country in the world, you eradicate a risk of war, and can then, finally, disarm yourself. The only way the US can get rid of its stockpile is to disarm every other hostile nuclear nation first.

The problem is the massive distrust people have with America, largely because they fall into the trap of believing that cliched argument that America should disarm first.

hasselbrad
02-06-2006, 01:55 PM
Mutually Assured Destruction works as a deterrent when your enemy values their own life. I'm not sure Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does. And, a country whose president openly endorses wiping another country off the map, really can't be trusted with something as powerful and destructive as nuclear weapons. Bush has done something no president in almost three decades has done; offer to negotiate with Iran. However, given Ahmadinejad's attitude, I don't think anything will come of it.
As for the shopworn argument about the United States not having a leg to stand on because of its nuclear arsenal, I ask you how safe you would feel if Iran had nuclear weapons and we didn't? Does our nuclear arsenal really threaten you that much? Have we shown a propensity to wave them around and use then indiscriminately over the past 60 years? Do you really think Israel has a chance if Iran gets its hands on nuclear weapons?

kingdumbass
02-06-2006, 02:05 PM
I am amused by the UN's way of dealing with this....
"Come on, Iran. Give up the nukes"
"No."
"PLEASE??? We'll give you some humanitarian aid!"
"Fuck off."
"Oh, don't be like that. Come on now. Don't make us impose sanctions."
"Do your worst."
"Hey, we're REALLY serious here. You've got six months to give up the nukes, or we'll start to talk about considering formulating a plan to deal with you."
"..."
"Um, Iran? Are you there?"
"Yawn."

Hazzle
02-06-2006, 02:19 PM
Brad, I was simply saying that MAD only has ANY impact whatsoever (against more developed nations) because America has such a massive stockpile. I don't think it's the way to deal with Iran at all, as they're clearly not bothered, but as you point out, what if Iran had them and the US didn't?

That's what my MAD point was in reference to. So long as the US has nukes it gives it SOME leverage to negotiate. And I agree, it's a bold move by Bush. Of course, as King points out, NOONE expects Iran to negotiate, but this will mean that if they refuse to do so, the UN would be hard-pressed to oppose a war. The old "Why couldn't you try diplomacy first?" argument would be effectively killed off. It's a very VERY clever powerplay by the US. Win-win.

deviljet88
02-06-2006, 02:27 PM
I am amused by the UN's way of dealing with this....
[/i]

LMAO! Quite accurate. Condo Rice's offer of diplomacy was only met with Iran claiming it was American proproganda after all.

hasselbrad
02-06-2006, 08:03 PM
Brad, I was simply saying that MAD only has ANY impact whatsoever (against more developed nations) because America has such a massive stockpile. I don't think it's the way to deal with Iran at all, as they're clearly not bothered, but as you point out, what if Iran had them and the US didn't?

That's what my MAD point was in reference to. So long as the US has nukes it gives it SOME leverage to negotiate. And I agree, it's a bold move by Bush. Of course, as King points out, NOONE expects Iran to negotiate, but this will mean that if they refuse to do so, the UN would be hard-pressed to oppose a war. The old "Why couldn't you try diplomacy first?" argument would be effectively killed off. It's a very VERY clever powerplay by the US. Win-win.

Oh I wasn't singling your post out, but just making a reference to the old Cold War mindset in the context of the current situation. Some of the young'uns might have never even heard the term, unless of course, they've seen Wargames. ;)