[Rictor]

ats rights. But I simply don't think he has the resouces to pull of another war. I hope not anyways,

on a related note, I don't see the difference between getting NEW nukes, like Iran is allegedly planning to do, and just keeping your old ones. What matters is who has how many, not really if they are recent aquisitions or decades old.

which means that if we were to agree upon a "no nukes" policy, that would mean all the current nuclear players disarming would be top priority.

but ofcourse, thanks to the wonder of double standards, we've got what we've got.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
ats rights. But I simply don't think he has the resouces to pull of another war. I hope not anyways,

on a related note, I don't see the difference between getting NEW nukes, like Iran is allegedly planning to do, and just keeping your old ones. What matters is who has how many, not really if they are recent aquisitions or decades old.

which means that if we were to agree upon a "no nukes" policy, that would mean all the current nuclear players disarming would be top priority.

but ofcourse, thanks to the wonder of double standards, we've got what we've got.

It's better to try & stop people getting new nukes than do nothing atall, you have to admit.

[Rictor]

yeah, you'll get no arguement from me.
But to be quite honest, I think the problem is that the people of nuclear armed countries feel it is their right, and no one else's to posses nukes. In theory, 6 of the 7 nuclear powers are democracies, though with Pakistan and Russia sort of iffy, thats still 4 of 7. If the people simply demanded nuclear disrmament, as straunchly as they demanded any number of things throughout the years, the government would have to comply.

and if this happened, I would be the first to demand that action be taken against those countries that fail to disarm. Oh if only a few beaurocrats weren't so short-sighted 50 years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[Kosh]

Originally posted by magatsu1


I think the UN is still peeved at GWB calling them "at risk of becoming irrelevent"

I think it is too bad, in a way, the GWB didn't say that congress was irrelevent.

[Rictor]

actions speak louder than words. there is a reason that no one man can declare war, Congress has to do it. But they figured out that little detail 50 years ago, and how to bypass it. So, yes, when it comes to war, Congress is irrelevant, and since any Prez can count on his own party members to strike down a no confidence vote, he essentially has carte blanche.

[magatsu1]

Maybe for Congress but the UN is 'sposed to be different.

I don't know eh, where are all those UN troops when you need 'em ?

[Gank]

Originally posted by vyper
MOABs are a tastey alternative to those high fat Nukes. They aren't as filling, but they can get the job done with no fallout.

They also can only be dropped by a C-130, which aint exactly the sort of plane you want to fly over hostile territory.

Originally posted by aldo_14
Could be covert options, of course.  A nice 'accident' with plausible deniability is always the best option.
 

Ya, US special forces done well the last time they went into Iran. And even if they manage not to crash into each other, the Iranians are going to know exactly who it was.

[Rictor]

no, see, thats why you have Israelis in Northern Iraq, training Kurds to go romping around in Iran. Plausible deniability baby.

[Liberator]

Let's examine this bit by bit here:

Iran is a country ruled by the bronze fist of a Islamic Theocracy.

The Leaders of said theocracy believe that non-muslims are less than people and worthy only of death.(NOTE: I didn't say all muslims believe this way, as was said recently, "Not all muslims are Terrorists, but so far all Terrorists have been muslim." - I forget who said this but he was a muslim)

If said leaders get "The Bomb" they have no moral compunction against anhilating their by any means neccesary.

Said leaders feel that they're enemies include the USA and most other western powers.

Said leaders could very easily release "The Bomb" "under the table", as it were, to individuals or organizations who could not easily be linked back to said leaders(how's that for plausible deniability?)


However, just because they are on the verge of constructing an atomic bomb doesn't mean that they will be able to mass produce them at a rate that will make them a serious threat.  I do feel however that people as provenly unstable as the mullahs should not be allowed to possess such awe inspiring amounts of firepower.

[Bobboau]

yeah, I'm just waiting for someone here to say something like 'there are no conections between ran and Al Qeada'.

[Rictor]

You make the mistake of believing that all your enemies are suicidal. I bet you thought (still think) that the Soviet leadership was all a bunch of fanatics and madmen. Maybe so, but they had the good sense to know that starting a nuclear war is not it anyone's best interests.

And anyway, its not as simple as "Iranians hate our freedom and want to destroy the western world". Aside from the embassy thing, I can think of no example when Iran has attacked the US. And they would surely not do so if they got The Bomb, because as someone mentioned, that would pertty much be the end for them. America however, possesses several thousand nukes, and its plans to attack Iran at the first possible opportunity are not exactly a secret.

also, please don't make such stupid, simplistic statements like "all terrorists are Muslim". What about Timothy McVeigh, or Irish terrorists, or several dozen US backed terrorists organizations, both past and present, or in fact, the US itself.

[aldo_14]

Um, RE: 'Iranian instability' - how many wars have Iran started in the last few decades? (NB: Iraq invaded them first in the Persian Gulf War, unless I'm mistaken)

If Iran get the bomb, it's not the end of the world.  Yes, it's a bad thing anyone having a nuke is.  But it's not worthy of, for example, a US invasion that would further destabilise global security.

NB:  All terrorists are political, is about the only true statement you could make.

EDIT; yes, I just lapsed into Yoda speak.  I don't know why.

[Zarax]

RE: Anyone having the nuke:
Hmm, a global scale MAD, where you'd think twice before invading someone...
On the other side it would lead a tech race to counter the technology... ABM redux

[aldo_14]

I'd rather have a thousand normal wars than one nuclear one, though.

Because after one nuclear war, there's no-one left to fight another.

[Rictor]

what about the zombies and the morlocks?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
what about the zombies and the morlocks?

Zombies & Morlocks get on well fine, maaaaaaaaaannnnnnn...........