Iran dug tunnel for military nuclear work

[Winston]

MrFun,

Do you think Israel and even the US giving up their nukes would make the slightest difference to the Iranians' desire to get some?

[MrFun]

No they wouldn't.

I guess that post was just nonsensical, idealistic babble.



my apologies

[Winston]

Yes, but having an idealistic, even moral, view on things is still a valuable asset when you're trying to push for rogue nations to give up nuclear programs. So it wasn't totally nonsensical.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Winston
I did not insult you. I just stated the facts about your hatred of Israel.

I don't hate Israel. I just don't lick its ass either. I consier it the same as any other state.

BTW, "chegitz guevara got his customary hardon attacking Israel and everyone and everything associated with it," is not merely a mischaraterization of my position but also an insult.

And I suppose you didn't call Siro a fascist either, hm?

I didn't. I said stop reading fascist propaganda. There's a difference.

As to your continued beating of that dead horse of yours, maybe I could ask you to keep your rabid anti-Israeli ramblings out of a thread on Iran's nukes altogether?

The subject of Israel and its aggression is relevent to why Iran sees a need for nukes. The fact that Iran sees a need of nukes is relevent to why Iran is trying to get nukes. Unfortunately for you, the world isn't neatly packaged up into nice guys and bad guys who do things either to defend themselves from badguys or to persue their neferious plans for evil. Actions have repercutions decades after the fact, and the whole ME is wrapped up in a Gordian knot of threats, perceived threats, insults, perceived insults, and lots and lots of history. Sp while you might like to simply say, "Iran has no reason to have nukes!" that's not quite the case. They have plenty of reasons.

None of the preceding should be taken to imply that I endorse the aquisition of nukes by Iran.

You do realise that's my complaint wrt. to the threadjack, not a short exchange several hours ago on whether Israel could be considered an enemy of Iran or not.

I also noticed that you scolded neither Siro nor Edan, so I must surmise that your objection is not to the threadjack itself, but to my viewpoint. Apparently you feel it's okay for them to attack my point, but I should just let them attack my points and not try and rebutt them. If I let it go without comment, then I'm tacitly admitting my point is invalid, which I don't admit.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Winston
MrFun,

Do you think Israel and even the US giving up their nukes would make the slightest difference to the Iranians' desire to get some?

Possibly. Pakistan stopped its push for nukes in the 70s when India put its program on the shelf. Libya just stopped its nuke program. But neither the US nor Israel are about to give up their nukes, so it's a moot point.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

And this coming from an Israeli?

Oh the hypocrisy....

Yes, you're right.

We should infact give nukes to everyone on earth who wants them...

It's impossible to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. As technology spreads, so do they. Some 50 or so countries already have the knowledge and infrastructure to build nuclear weapons. There have been incidents of people building nuclears bombs in their home, apparently. Do you seriously think you can prevent nuclear weapons from being built?


And why should you think anyone would voluntarily refrain from doing so when the people telling them not to all have nuclear weapons of their own?

[Winston]

In addition to this:

Originally posted by Winston
This sub-debate is now over for me also.

...only the point that I agree that in their own way of looking at the world, the Iranians could well see themselves as having plenty of reasons to acquire nukes. That's why I posted this earlier,

"I thought we weren't talking about Iran's "logic", by which, granted, they might perceive Israel as having aggressive intentions - but rather whether we, as onlookers, agree with Iran's desire to acquire nukes. Whether it's their "right" so to speak."

I still think it's more relevant how the surrounding world community sees things than how the Iranian leadership does. That's why we should keep pushing for them to give it up.

[Winston]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Possibly. Pakistan stopped its push for nukes in the 70s when India put its program on the shelf. Libya just stopped its nuke program. But neither the US nor Israel are about to give up their nukes, so it's a moot point.

Of course it's a moot point. It was meant as an illustration of the independency of other nations' having nukes or not, to the Iranians' burning wish to develop their own.

Did you watch the video Sirotnikov linked to earlier. It might hold an indication as to whether they were likely to give it up even if nobody else in the whole wide world had nukes...

[Edan]

Originally posted by General Ludd


It's impossible to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons. As technology spreads, so do they. Some 50 or so countries already have the knowledge and infrastructure to build nuclear weapons. There have been incidents of people building nuclears bombs in their home, apparently. Do you seriously think you can prevent nuclear weapons from being built?

A lot of countries have the knowledge to build nuclear weapons. Many of them even have the capabilitiy to build them.

Most of them don't.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Winston
Do you think Israel and even the US giving up their nukes would make the slightest difference to the Iranians' desire to get some?

No, but a large reduction in US conventional forces might. The disparity between US and Iranian conventional forces is the reason Iran has to bridge the gap with nukes.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Edan


A lot of countries have the knowledge to build nuclear weapons.

Most of them don't have it.

What's "it"?

You mean, more don't then do?


Yeah, there's a ****load of piss-poor third world countries.


Do you think a tribal war lord in Africa is going to have the facilities to build a nuclear missle? No... of course not.


But, as technology spreads, and more and more of these countries "catch up" they too will have the capabilities of building nuclear weapons. And even if a country doesn't have the means to build them theirselves, there are - as you say - alot of countries that can do it for them, or help them (perhaps involuntarily) in the process.

[Winston]

I seem to recall that India got their first operational nuclear warhead in 1974, so I don't think Pakistan stepping down from development efforts at that time had a direct connection to India's capabilities.

[chequita guevara]

India tested a bomb in 73 or 74, then stopped development of their program. It wasn't until the mid-90s when they resumed, whereupon Pakistan resumed its program.

[Edan]

How long until we have German, Japanese, Canadian, Australian, Spanish, Italian, Belarusian, Kazakhstan and Ukrainian nuclear weapons?

[chequita guevara]

Kazakhstan has the bomb, lots of them infact. Ukraine had them, but gave them up to Russia (although a certain number are unaccounted for). I don't know what happened to the weapons in Byelorus.