namelesstavern.net

Do you really think deterence would have no effect on terrorism? Lets say Iran goes nuclear. There's no way they would openly make a nuclear strike against the US, because it's hard to drill for oil when your country has been turned to glass. But, I suppose you could argue they may "lose" a warhead that makes it into the hands of a terrorist organization, and said organization would then blow up the Superdome a la Tom Clancy.

But do you think for a second, that Iran doesn't know we would know where the warhead came from, that we would know they were ultimately responsible? And with that knowledge, with no plausible deniability, would they still actually be insane enough to allow a Hezbollah or Hamas to do such a thing?

I don't buy it. Is it a risk? Sure. It's a risky world, and America can't(shouldn't) be in control of it no matter how much we want to. It's too tangled, our web of interest in the rest of the world. Time to cut the threads, since when we do actually take action, we only do it half assed.

The leader of Iran is insane and following what he believes to be religious docterine. I highly doubt he gives a shit if we know where they war head came from. Nor, do I think he cares if we'd strike back. You're argument might hold merrit if we were talking about a SANE leader, Min... we're not... we're talking about a psychotic.

It's like putting a street sweeper in the hands of a mad man and not worrying because he knows we know where he got it.

I've seen some of you argue some pretty stupid shit, but this is by far the stupidest. Allow other nations to have nuclear weapons? That's rediculous. I've never lived in a Middle Eastern country, but from the international experience I do have I can tell you that there is no GOOD reason to allow others to develop nuclear weapons. What's the positive side of doing it?

Sure, you say that the U.S. has no right to police the world. Personally, I believe we have every right to do so. If the U.S. were to stand by and do nothing we'd have WWIII on our hands in no time.

Well, if you listen the misguided, fear inducing, propaganda of the right, we're already in WWIII haha...

But, yeah you're right. Giving the nature of madmen, all we need is an open door policy allowing any country who wants, to have nukes. THAT's a good idea /sarcasm off.

I don't even like the idea of the US having them, but we do, and they're not going away. The best we can do now is to prevent their proliferation. Especially to countries who have no legit need, or harbor the intent of using them because they feel like, or because their so-called God tells them to.

Given the status of Iran, I'm all for using military force to ensure they do not build a nuclear weapon. While I am opposed to this charade in Iraq that's getting our troops killed - I honestly wouldn't have a problem with using force in Iran.

Thon wrote:I'm curious what people think about the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, specifically why Iran should be denied the ability to make them.

I don't really care how unfair or hypocritical it is, the US should be against it and do everything possible to prevent it. The world stage is not some kindergarten class where we need to make sure everyone has their own milk and cookies. To say we are being unfair or hypocritical is taking an overly simplistic view to boot. It ignores the fact that the people of Iran have very little control over their government. While I'm sure quite a few here would argue that US citizens don't have control of our government right now, we have far more influence then the people of Iran.

We can hypothesize all day about if or why not Iran being nuclear weapons capable would use them, frankly I don't want to find out for sure. If you think with all certainty that they wouldn't or wouldn't allow them to fall into the hands of a terrorist group then you aren't being realistic. Could it be possible for Iran to have nuclear weapons and not use them? Sure, but I don't want to find out if they will or not.

Minrott comparing nuclear weapons where countries are concerned, and weapons in the hands of civilians are two different things. We aren’t talking about peoples ability to defend themselves, we are talking about giving unstable people the ability to kill thousands of people and bring destruction on a massive scale. Think about the reason you are anti gun control (and not because you like your collection). Chance are its because you feel arming people gives them power and the ability to defend themselves. Giving an insane person control over a nuclear weapon is effectively disarming anyone that they can hit with it, it takes away the ability of the likely targets to defend themselves.

Markarado wrote:I've seen some of you argue some pretty stupid shit, but this is by far the stupidest. Allow other nations to have nuclear weapons? That's rediculous. I've never lived in a Middle Eastern country, but from the international experience I do have I can tell you that there is no GOOD reason to allow others to develop nuclear weapons. What's the positive side of doing it?

Sure, you say that the U.S. has no right to police the world. Personally, I believe we have every right to do so. If the U.S. were to stand by and do nothing we'd have WWIII on our hands in no time.

So what else does the US have the right to tell people they can and can not have? What gives the US the right to force our ways on everyone else in the world? Will we start deciding who can and can not have a military? Will we decide what governments they can and can not have? Oh wait, we already do that. Is it not a bit hypocritical for the only country in the world to have actually used a nuclear weapon, to tell people they can not have them because they might get used?

What makes the US so damn special that we should be able to rule the world?

The world stage is not some kindergarten class where we need to make sure everyone has their own milk and cookies.

Thank you!

Iran will have nuclear weapons whether they develop them or not. They have the biggest oil field in world so they will have the financial resources to buy one or more nukes.

Maybe the best solution would be to tell Iran (probably not through public channels :P), that if any nuclear weapon is set off that is even remotely connected to them, that the US will utterly demolish Mecca and every other Islamic holy site on the face of the earth in a rain of bombs coated with pig's blood.

Both Thon and Gidan have cited the fact that the US has been the only country to ever use nuclear weapons as a reason we have no right to try and prevent nuclear proliferation. Another way we could look at it is that we created the problem and it is our responsibility to deal with it.

Of course the other aspect is that at the time no one knew exactly what effects an atomic bomb would have. Obviously it would be devastating, but the prolonged effects to both people and environment were not known. Given the situation at the time a decision was made base on estimated casualties (Both American and Japanese) of a bloody campaign to invade Japan which would literally range in the millions, and the loss of life in using the atom bomb. The loss of life estimated and real far underscored the estimate of loss of life of a continued conventional military campaign. I'm sorry but with what we now know of just not confirmation of the devastating immediate effects, but that of the long term major repercussions it is utterly asinine to argue that we shouldn't prevent nuclear proliferation whenever possible. Quite honestly we shouldn't give our allies nuclear weapons technology, and absolutely we should do are best to prevent unfriendly countries from developing them.

I’ll give you this Thon, a very interesting thread/subject. I am genuinely surprised at some of the pro-proliferation arguments here. Honestly at the very least I can usually see where the other side of arguments are coming from even if I don’t agree… but this just totally escapes me, I really just can not comprehend the mindset that wants to be “fairâ€

Once we used the bombs on Japan, and discovered all the after-effects, did we reel back in horror and usher in a new era of peace on earth? Nope. We built as many as we could, and aimed them at Russia. Who immediately scrambled to get on equal footing. We learned what happened afterwards, and created the hydrogen bomb. Which is almost to the Hiroshima bomb as it was to a conventional bomb.

Is a nuclear armed Iran great news for our interests? Hell no. It was bad when the Soviets got the bomb. Every time a nuclear weapon is made, it's bad news for all of humanity. But we don't have the right to go around telling other countries they can't arm themselves with the same weapons we use.

I really fail to see how Iran with nuclear weapons makes the world that much more dangerous than it already is. Sure they hate us, but they have every reason to. We've been fucking with their government since after World War 2. Us putting the Shah in power led to their Islamic Revolution. We have nobody to blame for their hate but ourselves.

And as for the crazies running their government today. They've been in power for almost 30 years, and how many wars have they started? None, Saddam invaded them in the 80's. Using chemical weapons obtained with aid from the U.S., and other countries. Iran also had access to chemical weapons, but never used them. Now in just this current administration we've attacked two nations. It seems like America is the more dangerous country.

My question still stands, unanswered. Why should Iran be denied nuclear weapons, when we and dozens of other countries have them? A logical, free of double standard reason. If you really believe they shouldn't have the bomb, it shouldn't be hard to come up with a reason.

Iran doesn't hate us, its Government does. Huge difference...

as for:

Wordy ignorance wrote:Why should Iran be denied nuclear weapons, when we and dozens of other countries have them?

It is because they WILL give them to terrorists who WILL use them on the U.S. or another country that will likely mean the beginning of a nuclear holocaust for the rest of the world.

A nuclear weapon isn't a fucking right that a government should just be given.

"Waaaaaah the U.S. has used them and we have them, waaaah." Shut the fuck up.

Sometimes I swear to God you people want your own Government and people to die in a nuclear blast or a biochemical attack.

Edit: Typo

Harrison wrote:Sometimes I sweat to God.

I shudder to think why you are sweating to God.

Zanchief wrote:

Harrison wrote:Sometimes I sweat to God.

I shudder to think why you are sweating to God.

Is that worse than sweating to Richard Simmons?

Nacho Forklifto wrote:It is because they WILL give them to terrorists who WILL use them on the U.S. or another country that will likely mean the beginning of a nuclear holocaust for the rest of the world.

Your whole reasoning is based on hypotheticals, and supposition. I'm not sure how you can prove what someone will do before they do it. You apparently misunderstood the question.

To be honest i think us telling the rest of the world what they can and cannot do is more a danger to our interests and future national security.

However, maybe you should stick to video games. In fact I've heard of one you could be world champ at!

*nod* Typical lack of retort.

Good job! Keep up the work hippie!

Fuck whether we have the right to tell them they can or not, the whole godamn Middle East is out of their godamn mind.

Harrison wrote:*nod* Typical lack of retort.

Actually he did.

There is nothing wrong with driving a forklift for a living

Thon wrote:

Haha.

I fail to see why we supposedly have any right to tell any country what rights they do or do not have.

Think of it this way, if Iran gets the nuke, maybe they'll aim it at the UN.

Minrott wrote:I fail to see why we supposedly have any right to tell any country what rights they do or do not have.

Think of it this way, if Iran gets the nuke, maybe they'll aim it at the UN.

And the United Nation is based in New York City.

So what else does the US have the right to tell people they can and can not have? What gives the US the right to force our ways on everyone else in the world? Will we start deciding who can and can not have a military? Will we decide what governments they can and can not have? Oh wait, we already do that. Is it not a bit hypocritical for the only country in the world to have actually used a nuclear weapon, to tell people they can not have them because they might get used?

What makes the US so damn special that we should be able to rule the world?

It's not that it is the United States right to do this. It is that it is the United States responsibility as the only super power in the world.

Maybe thats why terrorist types hate us in the first place.

Thon wrote:My question still stands, unanswered. Why should Iran be denied nuclear weapons, when we and dozens of other countries have them? A logical, free of double standard reason. If you really believe they shouldn't have the bomb, it shouldn't be hard to come up with a reason.

I think I did in fact answer your question, even if it did not sway your opinion with a profound revelation you hadn't thought of. I do not feel that a nuclear weapons enabled Iran would have those weapons under the control of a completely sane individual. I do not believe that those in control of the Iranian government would completely dismiss the use of nuclear arms with the exception of reataliatory action that was of a defensive nature and only in a level of response proportionate to the threat. In short I don't care if it is hypocritical (and I definetly admit it is to an extent), I consider the safety and security issue paramount, above all else.

You disagree with my reason becuase you don't see my fears within the realm of possibility, and that is absolutely fine. In reality neither can be said with absolute certainty, and I just don't believe it is prudent to risk it if it can in any way possible be avoided.

Thon wrote:To be honest i think us telling the rest of the world what they can and cannot do is more a danger to our interests and future national security.

That right there made it pretty clear where you are comming from. Although I disagree, it is not a completely illogical opinion and does have merit.

As a side note, the whole bashing Harrison about work and school choices has been getting overdone and old... the ps2 mock up though breathed a little new life into it with a bit of a new twist (yea I snickered a bit when I saw it).