Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Bishop of Manchester: Britain has a moral duty to accept refugees from its wars

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Nonsense, Israel has had nukes for decades and it hasn't started an arms race.
    The act of acquiring a nuclear device is what starts an "arms race". That's why you said Iran would start an arms race by acquiring a nuclear device. That the technology wasn't available to these states or the incentives not to create a nuclear bomb were higher than the incentives to create a nuclear bomb is irrelevant.



    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Right, so we shouldn't believe them when they say that want to annihilate the Jews. We know how well that worked out in the 30s. Why on earth shouldn't the Jewish state take Iran's goals at face value? Because you liberals think it is rhetoric? Really Sam? And for decades Iran has not had the means to destroy the Jewish state - now they will. And they are not suicidal since their reward will be in the afterlife. They are not killing themselves they are gaining everlasting life.
    Your geopolitical knowledge of the situation hasn't moved past "Those crazy Muslims want to burn the world to the ground." And, because of that, you don't have any actual solutions to the problem. "Invade and bomb 'em until they stop" isn't a sustainable plan and people who so glibly offer it as serious have no credibility to speak of others' culpability for Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria or anywhere else.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    The leadership are hardly suicidal.
    Prove it.

    Which will help to shift balance of power away from the only nuclear state in the region: Israel.

    That is why Israel is so firmly against Iranian nukes.
    And they are the only ones who should have them.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    Well, if anyone "started" the nuclear arms race in the region, it'd have to be Israel.
    Nonsense, Israel has had nukes for decades and it hasn't started an arms race.

    Attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon would be clear and certain suicide for Iran. And if there's one thing decades of living with this Iranian regime has proved, it's that the regime is anything but suicidal. Israel's "destruction" is useful rhetoric for hardliners on both sides and nothing more. Iran's goal isn't to launch a nuclear attack on Israel; it's goal is to be the dominant regional power. And if it gets a nuclear weapon, that weapon will be used as they generally have been: as a deterrent and as an implicit standing threat.
    Right, so we shouldn't believe them when they say that want to annihilate the Jews. We know how well that worked out in the 30s. Why on earth shouldn't the Jewish state take Iran's goals at face value? Because you liberals think it is rhetoric? Really Sam? And for decades Iran has not had the means to destroy the Jewish state - now they will. And they are not suicidal since their reward will be in the afterlife. They are not killing themselves they are gaining everlasting life.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Start with destroying Israel which they vowed to do?
    The leadership are hardly suicidal.

    And this will also usher in a nuclear arms race in the region.
    Which will help to shift balance of power away from the only nuclear state in the region: Israel.

    That is why Israel is so firmly against Iranian nukes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Start with destroying Israel which they vowed to do? And this will also usher in a nuclear arms race in the region.
    Well, if anyone "started" the nuclear arms race in the region, it'd have to be Israel.

    Attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon would be clear and certain suicide for Iran. And if there's one thing decades of living with this Iranian regime has proved, it's that the regime is anything but suicidal. Israel's "destruction" is useful rhetoric for hardliners on both sides and nothing more. Iran's goal isn't to launch a nuclear attack on Israel; it's goal is to be the dominant regional power. And if it gets a nuclear weapon, that weapon will be used as they generally have been: as a deterrent and as an implicit standing threat.

    But your solution doesn't prevent Iran from building a nuclear device, any road. So then you'd still have to deal with a nuclear Iran. Only now it's an Iran where the hardliners have been proved right and any meaningful opposition to their views has been wiped out completely.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    Stop them from what?
    Start with destroying Israel which they vowed to do? And this will also usher in a nuclear arms race in the region.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Give me a break. Once they have nukes there will be nothing to stop them. These countries are not getting more moderate, but less. Not less dangerous but more.
    Stop them from what?

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    In all likelihood, yes. Given that very likely reality, the only question is which Iran do you want to have nukes? The one with a very modest moderate party and a generation of citizens hungry for political reform or the one who just spent five years burying their family members who were killed by a series of "preemptive" military attacks?
    Give me a break. Once they have nukes there will be nothing to stop them. These countries are not getting more moderate, but less. Not less dangerous but more.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    So basically Iran will get nukes.
    In all likelihood, yes. Given that very likely reality, the only question is which Iran do you want to have nukes? The one with a very modest moderate party and a generation of citizens hungry for political reform or the one who just spent five years burying their family members who were killed by a series of "preemptive" military attacks?

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    Insomuch as such a thing can be prevented, the best chance to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is diplomacy, specifically the deal being haggled over now. Without some sort of negotiation done in good faith, economic sanctions from Russia and China can't hold and Iran has no incentive not to pursue building a nuclear device as a deterrent. So a diplomatic solution may very well provide the path to deterring Iran for a decade. Military action certainly won't unless you're willing to chalk up tens to hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.
    So basically Iran will get nukes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    As a non-Yankee, I am appalled (though obviously not surprised, because empire gotta empire) that it is assumed that it is all perfectly fine to invade another country or otherwise conduct airstrikes against it when no conflict with it exists at this point.

    But to my main point: attacking Iran is the perfect way to convince it to go full steam on nuclear to protect its sovereignty and interests; it will learn from North Korea, who developed nukes and would be the only member of the 'Axis of Evil' remaining untouched.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    I'm not speaking of minimal surgical strikes, I'm speaking of the utter destruction of their main sites. So Sam do you want Iran to get the bomb? How would you prevent it?
    That's called "surgical strikes" — where you're destroying only your target. No one I've read on the subject has argued from any sort of evidence that Iran can be deterred for even a decade by air strikes.


    Insomuch as such a thing can be prevented, the best chance to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon is diplomacy, specifically the deal being haggled over now. Without some sort of negotiation done in good faith, economic sanctions from Russia and China can't hold and Iran has no incentive not to pursue building a nuclear device as a deterrent. So a diplomatic solution may very well provide the path to deterring Iran for a decade. Military action certainly won't unless you're willing to chalk up tens to hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    How so? That's definitely "Citation Needed" territory to argue that we could set Iran's nuclear program back 10-15 years with minimal surgical strikes.
    I'm not speaking of minimal surgical strikes, I'm speaking of the utter destruction of their main sites. So Sam do you want Iran to get the bomb? How would you prevent it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    No, we could set them back ten or fifteen years. Then do it again. If they want to hide these sites among their population then that is on them. I see no peaceful way to prevent Iran from getting nukes.
    How so? That's definitely "Citation Needed" territory to argue that we could set Iran's nuclear program back 10-15 years with minimal surgical strikes.

    Leave a comment:


  • seer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    Even the folks who support destroying Iranian nuclear sites while keeping a foot in reality, acknowledge that would only prevent Iran from creating a nuclear device for one to three years. And it would encourage Iran to build those new sites in very public or heavily-trafficked areas.

    What's the next step?
    No, we could set them back ten or fifteen years. Then do it again. If they want to hide these sites among their population then that is on them. I see no peaceful way to prevent Iran from getting nukes.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
16 responses
78 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
52 responses
274 views
0 likes
Last Post Mountain Man  
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
25 responses
109 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
33 responses
195 views
0 likes
Last Post Roy
by Roy
 
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
83 responses
352 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Working...
X