Should we stop Iran from getting the bomb?

More Than Mortal · January 16, 2015, 01:03:09 PM

I'm a bit of a hardliner when it comes to Iran, so I'm currently supportive of measures or initiatives which would stunt their opportunities to acquire a nuclear weapon. I'm open, however, to debate.

Lemy the Lizerd · January 16, 2015, 01:03:53 PM

Nah.

What we should do is try to mold them into an ally.

The Lord Slide Rule · January 16, 2015, 01:05:43 PM

Pakistan already has it, so what's another group of muzzies really?

<_<

Raptorx7 · January 16, 2015, 01:06:13 PM

You mean military intervention right?

Its a hard thing to debate because it could have a myriad of serious implications.

-Iran attacks Israel in retaliation

-Iran supports the bad guys in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria in retaliation, yes they fight for different ideologies for the most part but they wouldn't mind pissing the west off after us stopping there nuclear program especially if it was militarily,

-War with Iran

In my humble opinion, we don't need more war, and an attack on Iran in any capacity can lead to very serious consequences, that may not be readily apparent. I think its better to continue diplomatically instead of rash action, lets not make the same mistake as the early 2000's.

challengerX · January 16, 2015, 01:18:03 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Mr. Psychologist · January 16, 2015, 01:20:57 PM

I still find it rather hard to believe that what appeared to be the best potential ally in the middle east for the west, was blown off for a country that actively funds the people trying to kill us. (Saudis)

Iran might be a theocracy but it's at least not run by people who are completely insane. Pimpslap diplomacy is just going to end up with them getting a nuke anyway and having a grudge that might make them more prone to using it.

The only place I can think of that just shouldn't have nukes ever is north korea, because it's run by an infantile fatso who probably wouldn't think twice about actually using one.

challengerX · January 16, 2015, 01:27:05 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Dustin · January 16, 2015, 01:33:39 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Raptorx7 · January 16, 2015, 01:34:12 PM

Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 16, 2015, 01:33:39 PM

Yes, obviously

How would you go about doing it?

Dustin · January 16, 2015, 01:36:42 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Super Irish · January 16, 2015, 01:37:27 PM

Yes, and if they do need nuclear power plants for power, allow them to construct something that isn't able to create bombs, like a Thorium powered nuclear reactor (the by-products and waste aren't capable of being enriched in a centrifuge, IIRC)

Unfortunately that isn't going to happen. Israel doesn't want Iran to even have a chance of attaining nuclear weapons (and for once I wouldn't blame them), so there's that pressure on the US for sanctions, as well as that for some reason nobody really uses thorium reactors on a mass scale, despite their advantages. But both of these matters are a different story.

Dustin · January 16, 2015, 01:39:04 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Alternative Facts · January 16, 2015, 01:49:23 PM

Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 16, 2015, 01:39:04 PM

Quote from: Lemy the Lizerd on January 16, 2015, 01:03:53 PM
Nah.

What we should do is try to mold them into an ally.
That's not going to happen unless you want to trade out Israel as an ally.

Not exactly.

challengerX · January 16, 2015, 01:55:53 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · January 16, 2015, 01:59:58 PM

Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 16, 2015, 01:39:04 PM

That's not going to happen unless you want to trade out Israel as an ally.

Over my dead body.

Not to mention, Iran has funded Hezbollah and had a part in the 1983 Beirut bombing. The second of which, I'm fairly certain, should constitute an act of war.

Alternative Facts · January 16, 2015, 02:01:52 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 16, 2015, 01:59:58 PM

Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 16, 2015, 01:39:04 PM
That's not going to happen unless you want to trade out Israel as an ally.
Not to mention, Iran has funded Hezbollah and had a part in the 1983 Beirut bombing. The second of which, I'm fairly certain, should constitute an act of war.

I'm sure there are hundreds of potential acts of wars.

challengerX · January 16, 2015, 02:02:25 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Mad Max · January 16, 2015, 02:03:54 PM

Why shouldn't they have it? Should they not be on an equal playing field as many other countries?

More Than Mortal · January 16, 2015, 02:04:04 PM

Quote from: Icy on January 16, 2015, 02:01:52 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 16, 2015, 01:59:58 PM
Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 16, 2015, 01:39:04 PM
That's not going to happen unless you want to trade out Israel as an ally.
Not to mention, Iran has funded Hezbollah and had a part in the 1983 Beirut bombing. The second of which, I'm fairly certain, should constitute an act of war.
I'm sure there are hundreds of potential acts of wars.

Even if it weren't, I don't see why we should try to ally ourselves with a country which built a monument to commemorate the martyrs who carried it out.

Dustin · January 16, 2015, 02:08:46 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Dustin · January 16, 2015, 02:09:47 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · January 16, 2015, 02:09:50 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on January 16, 2015, 02:03:54 PM

Why shouldn't they have it? Should they not be on an equal playing field as many other countries?

Considering it's a fundamentalist Islamic regime, despises Israel, has supported attacks against America and could spark an arms race in the region. . .

No. . .

No it fucking shouldn't.

Raptorx7 · January 16, 2015, 02:10:18 PM

Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 16, 2015, 02:08:46 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on January 16, 2015, 02:03:54 PM
Why shouldn't they have it? Should they not be on an equal playing field as many other countries?
No because that would directly limit the United States from projecting its power and influence.

How would it prevent us from projecting power?

I agree with them not having one, but this I am not sure about. It would certainly destabilize the region, but it wouldn't directly limit our influence. We have a carrier group near the Persian Gulf at all times, and various military bases in Kuwait for example, our projection isn't going anywhere in th region.

Mad Max · January 16, 2015, 02:11:58 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 16, 2015, 02:09:50 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on January 16, 2015, 02:03:54 PM
Why shouldn't they have it? Should they not be on an equal playing field as many other countries?
Considering it's a fundamentalist Islamic regime, despises Israel, has supported attacks against America and could spark an arms race in the region. . .

No. . .

No it fucking shouldn't.

Should they not be able to have similar weapons as their enemies? It's like using a bow-and-arrow against a sniper rifle.

More Than Mortal · January 16, 2015, 02:17:15 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on January 16, 2015, 02:11:58 PM

Should they not be able to have similar weapons as their enemies?

No. Since when did we have an obligation to care about the moral position of Iran regarding warfare or subversion. I'm not going to let a regime like that of Iran's get nukes on the basis of 'fairness'.

Dustin · January 16, 2015, 02:18:43 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Mad Max · January 16, 2015, 02:20:31 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 16, 2015, 02:17:15 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on January 16, 2015, 02:11:58 PM
Should they not be able to have similar weapons as their enemies?
No. Since when did we have an obligation to care about the moral position of Iran regarding warfare or subversion. I'm not going to let a regime like that of Iran's get nukes on the basis of 'fairness'.

And Iran would likely make the same argument against countries WITH them.

Why should we have them but they can't?

More Than Mortal · January 16, 2015, 02:22:25 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on January 16, 2015, 02:20:31 PM

Why should we have them but they can't?

Because we aren't a fundamentalist Islamic regime funding Hamas or Hezbollah and encouraging suicide bombings. . .

Raptorx7 · January 16, 2015, 02:23:29 PM

Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 16, 2015, 02:18:43 PM

Quote from: Raptorx7 on January 16, 2015, 02:10:18 PM
Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 16, 2015, 02:08:46 PM
Quote from: Mad Max on January 16, 2015, 02:03:54 PM
Why shouldn't they have it? Should they not be on an equal playing field as many other countries?
No because that would directly limit the United States from projecting its power and influence.

How would it prevent us from projecting power?

I agree with them not having one, but this I am not sure about. It would certainly destabilize the region, but it wouldn't directly limit our influence. We have a carrier group near the Persian Gulf at all times, and various military bases in Kuwait for example, our projection isn't going anywhere in th region.
Yes, but a nuclear state essentially means that regime changes are completely out of the question, for the obvious reason that you cannot go to war with a nuclear state.

I have confidence in our military that we could stop a nuclear Iran with a single nuclear weapon from launching, and I bet our military leaders are to. Iran would be no where near as much as a nuclear threat as say Russia is, which has multiple ways of firing nuclear weapons, silos, mobile ballistic missile carriers, and submarines.

Regime change wouldn't be outside of reality either because they wouldn't use a nuke on there own country unless they have completely lost it. The people of Iran all don't agree with the extremist views of there leadership, a revolution would not be impossible.

Alternative Facts · January 16, 2015, 02:23:49 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 16, 2015, 02:22:25 PM

Quote from: Mad Max on January 16, 2015, 02:20:31 PM
Why should we have them but they can't?
Because we aren't a fundamentalist Islamic regime funding Hamas or Hezbollah and encouraging suicide bombings. . .

Eh. Give them a bomb.

It could make for a fun year.