Iran has its cake

Nothing wrong with that, they are as entitled to have Nuclear weapons as any other country.

Nothing wrong with that, they are as entitled to have Nuclear weapons as any other country.

they are..but would be interesting if they did..would certainly create a conflict or two

they are..but would be interesting if they did..would certainly create a conflict or two

Or deter a conflict - isn't that the point of Nuclear weapons?

Or deter a conflict - isn't that the point of Nuclear weapons?

not with isreal baying for blood if they build these weapons....

I doubt iran will ever have any decent nuclear weapons.the yanks will see to that

they are..but would be interesting if they did..would certainly create a conflict or two

In some ways we're in a very similar situation we were with in Iraq 10 years ago.

not with isreal baying for blood if they build these weapons....

I doubt iran will ever have any decent nuclear weapons.the yanks will see to that

You don't need a decent one, a crap nuclear weapon is still a deterrent.

I don't see what all the fuss is about, there is no reason why Iran would nuke Israel because it knows it would get flattened if it did.

The US needs to keep it's nose out of other people's affairs and chill the **** out.

You don't need a decent one, a crap nuclear weapon is still a deterrent.

 

I don't see what all the fuss is about, there is no reason why Iran would nuke Israel because it knows it would get flattened if it did.

 

The US needs to keep it's nose out of other people's affairs and chill the **** out.

I think the problem would be isreal (not so much nuking) attacking Iran..seeing as iran openly admits to wanting isreal off the map..

that would cause a world of ****..

I think the problem would be isreal (not so much nuking) attacking Iran..seeing as iran openly admits to wanting isreal off the map..

that would cause a world of ****..

This is such a common misconception - it is almost as bad as people still thinking that the pediatrician / paedophile thing happened in Portsmouth.

Ahmedinijad never said he wants Israel wiped off the map. What he actually said was that he wanted to see the current Israeli regime to be wiped from the pages of history: not the same thing at all. It seems that certain elements of the media picked up on a mis-translation in one of his speeches and used it to spread a bit of mass hysteria... seemingly so that any military action the US (and the UK as well, most likely) decide to take against Iran would appear to be completely justified.

This is such a common misconception - it is almost as bad as people still thinking that the pediatrician / paedophile thing happened in Portsmouth.

 

Ahmedinijad never said he wants Israel wiped off the map. What he actually said was that he wanted to see the current Israeli regime to be wiped from the pages of history: not the same thing at all. It seems that certain elements of the media picked up on a mis-translation in one of his speeches and used it to spread a bit of mass hysteria... seemingly so that any military action the US (and the UK as well, most likely) decide to take against Iran would appear to be completely justified.

either way...iran really does not like isreal...and isreal attacking iran to stop the building weapons (which is what is feared) will cause a world of shyt

I don't see how Iran wanting Israel off the map is any different to Israel wanting Palestine of the map, except Israel actually acts on it's wishes.

I don't see how Iran wanting Israel off the map is any different to Israel wanting Palestine of the map, except Israel actually acts on it's wishes.

I know...but it is what it is

You don't need a decent one, a crap nuclear weapon is still a deterrent.

I guess the previous residents of Hiroshima would testify that there really isn't such a thing as a 'crap' nuclear weapon.

It would just be the usual Yanks beating the crap out of a bunch of Arabs, as a War it wouldn't be a contest unless Iran has any sizable allies.

either way...iran really does not like isreal...and isreal attacking iran to stop the building weapons (which is what is feared) will cause a world of shyt

Nor do most of the surrounding countries

Nor do most of the surrounding countries

not even FIFAs new buddy...Qatar

I guess the previous residents of Hiroshima would testify that there really isn't such a thing as a 'crap' nuclear weapon.

Exactly, that's my argument for not renewing Trident. Just keep the old one, it might be old, rusty and not work but it would still be a deterrent because no one would want to find out.

Exactly, that's my argument for not renewing Trident. Just keep the old one, it might be old, rusty and not work but it would still be a deterrent because no one would want to find out.

does not quite work like that..

does not quite work like that..

Only if you over complicate things, it would work.

not even FIFAs new buddy...Qatar

Even the UAE held a big tennis tournament about a year ago and refused to let one of the top female Israeli players into the country. Shahar Peer I think her name was

Only if you over complicate things, it would work.

how do you launch them when the submarine they live in is too old..

also, how do you repair them when the country you buy them off does not make them any more..?

how do you launch them when the submarine they live in is too old..

 

also, how do you repair them when the country you buy them off does not make them any more..?

Just keep them in the old sub, they will be OK. Don't matter if they work or not, we will never find out without destroying the planet anyway.

Just keep them in the old sub, they will be OK. Don't matter if they work or not, we will never find out without destroying the planet anyway.

not really much of a deterant when people know they are old and generally dont work

not really much of a deterant when people know they are old and generally dont work

But that's my point, it is.

If someone is pointing an old WW2 pistol at your head you don't want to find out if it works or not.

But that's my point, it is.

 

If someone is pointing an old WW2 pistol at your head you don't want to find out if it works or not.

and if the world knows it does not work then they can click at your head

So, nuclear weaponry exists, but only USA, Britain and other countries that USA agree can have them are allowed to develop and keep them. Any countries that the USA don't want to have them aren't allowed to and will be attacked if they do. I'm not saying Iran would or wouldn't be dangerous if they had them, but what gives USA or any other country with nuclear weaponry the right to say who else can have it?

So, nuclear weaponry exists, but only USA, Britain and other countries that USA agree can have them are allowed to develop and keep them. Any countries that the USA don't want to have them aren't allowed to and will be attacked if they do. I'm not saying Iran would or wouldn't be dangerous if they had them, but what gives USA or any other country with nuclear weaponry the right to say who else can have it?

in a nutshell...

i thought the aim was not to have more nukes in the world.....

See, all these right wing folk go on and on and on about how we need to have a nuclear deterrent and nuclear weaponry is necessary blah blah blah blah bull**** blah.

It is huge double standards to then come out and say Iran should never be allowed them. I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons as much as the next person, I don't want anyone to have them. However, I just think we should look inwards at ourselves before lecturing everyone else. And I don't want to hear about the steps the US and Russia are taking to reduce their stocks... it's absolute bull**** cutting your stock slightly when you have thousands of warheads.

Nuclear weapons scare me. The problem with them is in today's world is if one person drops just one warhead that is it, world over.

in a nutshell...

 

i thought the aim was not to have more nukes in the world.....

Presumably that would mean the amount of warheads?

Which then prompts the question about replacement warheads, would they have the same effect or would they actually be able to destroy more, per warhead, than the current ones?

If the 'big countries' have them why shouldn't the smaller countries want them in an effort to give themselves some level of protection under MAD?

No warheads is surely the way to go?

Presumably that would mean the amount of warheads?

 

Which then prompts the question about replacement warheads, would they have the same effect or would they actually be able to destroy more, per warhead, than the current ones?

 

If the 'big countries' have them why shouldn't the smaller countries want them in an effort to give themselves some level of protection under MAD?

 

No warheads is surely the way to go?

agree..but allowing others to have them while we are reducing is not really achieving much

This is all very interesting but it is not Iran we should be worrying about. If, as the UN seem to believe, they are developing nuclear technology for weapons rather than energy then it will be many, many years before they are able to use them. In my opinion it is the stockpiles of nuclear weapons that Pakistan holds that is much more of a threat to the rest of the world, owing to the likelihood of them being seized by Al-Qaeda / the Taleban. The Iranian president may well be persona non grata, but he isn't stupid. Whereas the fundamentalist nutters in Pakistan would not think twice about launching a nuke at Israel given the opportunity.