Jude 2

Iran has enriched enough uranium to equip a nuke, but not in sufficient quality and without (they think) the technology to actually weaponize it. Yet.

dolfan wrote:Iran has enriched enough uranium to equip a nuke, but not in sufficient quality and without (they think) the technology to actually weaponize it. Yet.

Intersting!!!

I am sure they have peaceful intentions

KB

I fear some Hollywood level war event is being setup to demonstrate what an extraordinary leader Obama is.

Remember Biden's comments that something is coming soon after he is President that the Liberals will not fully support.. Yet HAS to be done? Remember that he said something to the effect that he would be "tested" and "proven".


Be warned. If this happens.. don't believe a blasted thing you see. Get the facts.

Yup!

dolfan wrote:Iran has enriched enough uranium to equip a nuke, but not in sufficient quality and without (they think) the technology to actually weaponize it. Yet.

Like it or not, Iran will become nuclear. It's a fait accompli. We'll never stop it; neither will Israel, though it will try. My take is that once Iran has nuclear weapons, the game will change. Iran will moderate because of the stakes. It has territory to protect, and its interest will be to maintain its sovereign statehood. The likelihood that the Iranian government would risk its existence to providing nuclear weapons to terrorists is low. To the extent that the possession of nuclear weapons will moderate Iranian foreign policy, I think that it will have an overall positive effect in the region.

Tim Elston wrote:the possession of nuclear weapons will moderate Iranian foreign policy, I think that it will have an overall positive effect in the region.

Wow. So it's been your experience that extreme power moderates?

If you're right, I'll buy you a steak! Medium rare okay with you?

If you're wrong, Tim, you buy me one and we'll be able to eat them outside without lights. But, we needn't worry because they'll be glowing in the dark.

MacUser wrote:Wow. So it's been your experience that extreme power moderates?

The only nuclear weapon that has ever been dropped as an act of war was dropped by the United States. Nations are extremely reluctant to use nuclear weapons against other nations that have nuclear weapons or are allied with nations that do. India and Pakistan are bitter enemies who both have nuclear weapons. They have been on the brink of attacking each other, but the dire nature of nuclear war has deterred them. If Iran were to use a nuclear weapon against one of its enemies, it knows that an international coalition, led by the United States, would retaliate with nuclear attacks of its own. If it were to provide terrorists with nuclear weapons, it would likewise be attacked unsparingly. The Soviet Union chose not to nuke the United States, and vice versa, because of the spectre of retaliation. It is, in fact, my and your experience that nuclear weapons deter the use of nuclear weapons between the most bitter of enemies.

dolfan wrote:If you're right, I'll buy you a steak! Medium rare okay with you?

If you're wrong, Tim, you buy me one and we'll be able to eat them outside without lights. But, we needn't worry because they'll be glowing in the dark.

If I'm wrong, then we'll have Iranian burgers and call them "Hannibal's Persian Ham." They'll be glowing, alright.

You had a question somewhere about nights in Alaska. It's not too bad in Juneau, because we're in the southeastern panhandle. They tell me that the shortest day is about 6 to 6 1/2 hours of daylight. Up in Fairbanks they say it's 3 or 4 hours long. These days in Juneau the sun is rising at 8 and setting at 3:30. I like how fast day lengths change and the stark sense of seasons it brings.

Tim Elston wrote:It is, in fact, my and your experience that nuclear weapons deter the use of nuclear weapons between the most bitter of enemies.

I understand that historical logic. It's sound. But the key element here being that they do not release the genie to a terrorist group (ie: operating outside of historical country borders etc) to reach the rogue countries understated ultimate goal and have plausible deniability and thus Protection from international communities.

The widespread use and new production of this technology must be stopped NOW and not allowed to propagate thru any means necessary.

Get the birds in the air and take it out if they fail to listen to reason.

Tim Elston wrote:

MacUser wrote:Wow. So it's been your experience that extreme power moderates?

The only nuclear weapon that has ever been dropped as an act of war was dropped by the United States. Nations are extremely reluctant to use nuclear weapons against other nations that have nuclear weapons or are allied with nations that do. India and Pakistan are bitter enemies who both have nuclear weapons. They have been on the brink of attacking each other, but the dire nature of nuclear war has deterred them. If Iran were to use a nuclear weapon against one of its enemies, it knows that an international coalition, led by the United States, would retaliate with nuclear attacks of its own. If it were to provide terrorists with nuclear weapons, it would likewise be attacked unsparingly. The Soviet Union chose not to nuke the United States, and vice versa, because of the spectre of retaliation. It is, in fact, my and your experience that nuclear weapons deter the use of nuclear weapons between the most bitter of enemies.

To me the problem, is that the terrorist mentality that has gripped the middle eastern world doesn't care if they themselves are killed in there process of inflicting jihad on the infidels of the west (and there allies). The suicide bombing actions of so many of these terrorist types should be enough to paint a clear picture of who we are dealing with. Self preservation is an awesome deterant to those who actually care about this life but means little to those who spout about the glorious 72 virgins that await them in the afterlife.

Brian wrote:To me the problem, is that the terrorist mentality that has gripped the middle eastern world doesn't care if they themselves are killed in there process of inflicting jihad on the infidels of the west (and there allies). The suicide bombing actions of so many of these terrorist types should be enough to paint a clear picture of who we are dealing with. Self preservation is an awesome deterant to those who actually care about this life but means little to those who spout about the glorious 72 virgins that await them in the afterlife.

I hear you, Brian. Terrorism is a legitimate concern. We need to go after terrorists relentlessly. But there is no way in the world that a terrorist organization can deploy nuclear weapons without state support. Only nations can create nuclear weapons. And for any nation to supply a terrorist organization with a nuclear weapon would be suicide for that nation.

Afghanistan provided support to an organization that took down two of our tallest buildings, a third building, hit the Pentagon and killed over 3000 of our people in those buildings. And look what happened to the Afghani governent that provided that support. What do you think would happen to a country that provided the bomb to an organization that nuked an entire American city? Absolute toast. The Iranian government would never do that. Never. When they get nuclear weapons (and they will, whether we and Israel like it, or not), they will be the first to make sure that no one besides their own government has control over those weapons. They are not going to sacrifice their existence (and they know it's their existence) to someone else's agenda.

Americans need to start thinking straight about this. We can't afford to get ourselves in a world of unnecessary hurt and unaffordable, unnecessary war by being driven by an irrational fear. The moment Iran gets nuclear weapons, you can bet that the internal politics of that country will begin to change. There is a huge pro-western element in that country, much of it composed of young people, and moderate forces within and without the government will exert a stream of pressure on the government to tone down its rhetoric and act responsibly. We need to do that same.

And if Iran does supply terrorists with a nuclear weapon, we will indeed go in with unequivocal international support and put an end to that menace, in no uncertain terms.

I agree Tim. Nations (like Iran) are definately in a different position and have a different mindset than roug little terrorist groups. I don't mean to suggest that Iran would bow to the wims of johnny jihad. They have there own, seperate ajenda.

Tim I like you so far I really do, I believe you are honest and sincere but I have to admit this is the first time I have heard a theory that Iran with Nuclear power is a good thing and will be better.

It will be worse , now they can make more demands and do things, support groups and people will not be as quick to go to war because "hey they have nuclear bomb"

I also feel they are not afraid to use it at all and if they did lets take a look at what could happen.

They nuke Israel. We then defend Israel and the upcoming "Russia" will back Iran. This will be a huge stand off. This is the worst thing that could have happened. This made a extremist nation of terrorist capable of having way more power then they should have. It will be worse not better.

I remember a third part of the earth was killed by fire brimstone and smoke...now more and more re getting nukes.....

These people are governed by their fundamentalist religion not the best interest of their nation. They want a "Islam" World again and this can help their agenda. Now Russia (Putin) is getting really close to them, IT is NOT a good thing at all.

I for one believe they would sell nukes to terrorist and also use them their self.

one love wrote:Tim I like you so far I really do, I believe you are honest and sincere but I have to admit this is the first time I have heard a theory that Iran with Nuclear power is a good thing and will be better.

My position is that it is inevitable and that it will have as-yet unappreciated positive affects. I think it would be a better world if Iran didn't get nukes, but it will, and when it does it will not be an end-game.

one love wrote:It will be worse , now they can make more demands and do things, support groups and people will not be as quick to go to war because "hey they have nuclear bomb"

It will definitely change the game. The stakes will be higher, for us and for them. The "and for them" part is to what our rhetoric tends to blind us.

one love wrote:I also feel they are not afraid to use it at all and if they did lets take a look at what could happen.

They nuke Israel. We then defend Israel and the upcoming "Russia" will back Iran. This will be a huge stand off. This is the worst thing that could have happened. This made a extremist nation of terrorist capable of having way more power then they should have. It will be worse not better.

Iran is not going to nuke Israel. It's not going to happen. That would spell the end of Iran. They want nukes as the ultimate bargaining chip, not as a suicide weapon.

As far as Russia goes, I stand with Pat Buchanan regarding the untoward provocative nature of the Bush, McCain, and Obama policies of crowding into Russia's historical sphere of influence and demanding that they stay within their own borders as we put our footprint all over their region. They have a right to influence in their region, and if we presume to deny them that right then we are the ones asking for trouble, not them.

one love wrote:These people are governed by their fundamentalist religion not the best interest of their nation. They want a "Islam" World again and this can help their agenda. Now Russia (Putin) is getting really close to them, IT is NOT a good thing at all.

We Americans are woefully ignorant of the complexity of Iranian society and government. I would recommend to anyone to pull a good scholarly book off the shelf to become familiar with that country.