Should Iran be prevented from having nuclear weapons?

Shirina wrote:I don't think the American people will tolerate yet another war. Our soldiers have been at this for almost 10 years; the families of those soldiers have been at this for almost 10 years. If we go into Iran, or even support Israel if they make such a move, I'm sure everyone here in this country will be asking - who is next? North Korea? Will we see a second decade of war?

I am a little nervous about Iran having nuclear weapons. I would be lying if I said I wasn't. Not because I think Ahmadinejad is going to press the big red button, but because Ahmadinejad won't be in power forever, and Iran can produce some fairly radical anti-Western leaders. I'm sure many here are old enough to remember Ayatollah Khomeini and the student-led rebellion against the Shah. Any sane leader of Iran would never launch a nuclear strike against Israel or its allies - allies that have thousands of nukes.

But I fear that Iran could revitalize the game of nuclear brinksmanship seen during the Cold War - the Cuban Missile Crisis, Operation Able Archer, etc. Even more frightening is the prospect of Iran using nuclear weapons via proxy. In other words, giving or selling even a small nuclear device or dirty bomb to a terrorist organization which would gleefully set it off in London, New York, or Tel-Aviv without a moment's hesitation. Iran could easily shrug its shoulders and claim it had no knowledge, and it would be incredibly difficult to prove otherwise.

Despite these fears, however, America cannot monitor every nation and enforce a Pax Americana onto the rest of the world. Even if that was our government's goal, the American people are weary of being the world's policeman and we have no desire to engage in building an empire. We need to just leave Iran alone.

RockOnBrother wrote:
One prominent Republican has demonstrated geopolitical expertise in the 21st Century. That Republican is not in the "race."

astra wrote:
Don't know about Iran, but Senator John McCain has just called for GI's to march into Syria.
Syria has a Mediterranean Coastline, a nice 'yomp' accross Iraq and.... Does anyone smell "mission creep"

RockOnBrother wrote:

astra wrote:
Don't know about Iran, but Senator John McCain has just called for GI's to march into Syria.
Syria has a Mediterranean Coastline, a nice 'yomp' accross Iraq and.... Does anyone smell "mission creep"

Won’t happen. Now you know one reason that I voted for the current President of the United States.

About this time last year, certain folks were calling on Commander in Chief Obama to put American USV “boots-on-ground” in Libya. He did not. He backed NATO putting “bombs-on-ground.”

Folks forget that Obama studied Political Science at a pretty decent school as an undergrad, and that his life experiences have exposed him to the vagaries of several cultures. Syria isn’t the place for American USV or British soldiers to be walking around exposed to idiocy.

One American E6 told me that in Iraq one morning he saved a Sunni’s life. The Sunni thanked him effusively. That afternoon he saved a Shia’s life, and the Sunni he had saved hours earlier tried to kill him.

Obama “knows about stuff like that.”

oftenwrong wrote:
I've decided to delegate that problem to the ISRAELI government. I'm sure they know more about the threat from Iran than I do.

RockOnBrother wrote:

witchfinder wrote:
... Russia, China, Turkey and India.

Not exactly a gathering of righteous beacons of decency.

Still......the only nation to deliberately use nuclear weapons to kill large numbers of people is the USA.

Which goes to show that Nuclear weapons can have no effect on regional politics. They've not been used again since 1945, although there have never been seven consecutive days of World Peace since.

Shirina wrote:

Still......the only nation to deliberately use nuclear weapons to kill large numbers of people is the USA.

While this is factually accurate, I think the use of those facts is a bit skewed for a number of reasons:

1) The atom bombs were used to end a long and bloody war that would have been even bloodier if they had NOT been used. Not only were massive casualties predicted for both the Japanese civilians and US invasion force, the Soviets were rampaging through the Japanese on the Asian mainland, and the war needed to end quickly lest Stalin gobble up China, Indo-China, parts of Japan, etc. and put them behind the Iron Curtain. Oh, and the Soviets loved to rape and murder (when Germany invaded the USSR, the people of the Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania actually welcomed the Nazis as liberators).

2) Very little was known about nuclear weapons; the long term effects of radiation were even less known

3) The "nukes" were not very powerful. More people were killed in one night of conventional bombing than were killed by nukes.

4) There was not a negative world opinion of nuclear weapons at the time, i.e. no "political cost" for using them.

5) Since the US was the only nation that had nukes, triggering a global nuclear war could not have happened.

Hence, the circumstances of yesteryear are immeasurably different that the current situation with Iran.

it's a pity people readily believe american lies.

I won't pursue this with you - we've been here before in some detail on the old msn board - and I don't want to get into that again.

sickchip wrote:
Still......the only nation to deliberately use nuclear weapons to kill large numbers of people is the USA.

sickchip wrote:
It is well documented that the Japanese were about to surrender; and that the Americans dropped the bombs as an experiment to see what would happen - the japanese were guinea pigs.

The notion that more casualties would have been incurred without the dropping of the bombs is entirely excusist propaganda.....it's a pity people readily believe american lies.

witchfinder wrote:
There are four nuclear armed states in the world who have not signed the NPT ( Non-Proliferation Treaty ), India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.¹
Three out of these four have publicly announced that they posess nuclear weapons and have tested nuclear weapons, only one nation has never admitted to posessing such weapons - Israel.²

Less than three years ago the International Atomic Energy Agency called upon Israel³ to open up its facilities to inspection, and to adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, an Israeli⁴ spokesman stated that "Israel⁵ will not co-operate in any matter with this resolution".

A QUESTION OF BALANCE

The United States and Europe in my view will not stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon(s) capability, the whole of the midlle east is unbalanced in terms of military power, been heavily weighted in favour of Israel⁶ backed significantly by its⁷ ally, the United States.

A nuclear armed Iran will make that nation equal with Israel,⁸ both⁹ will ilegaly posess nuclear weapons, both¹⁰ will be acting outside international law, and both¹¹ will exclude international inspection.

As things stand at the present time, Iran is firmly on the side of the Palestinian people, and therefore opposes Israel,¹² its¹³ actions and its¹⁴ foreign policy, the two nations¹⁵ are diametrically oppsed to each other, on a potential collision course.

The real solution to solving this impasse is to solve the Palestinian problem,¹⁶ this is what this is realy all about.

But when Israel¹⁷ claims to want a lasting settlement, and at the same time continues to bulldoze Arab homes, it makes a mockery of Israels¹⁸ peaceful intentions.