INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: benjimanbreeg on July 14, 2015, 10:22:52 AM
-
Why can't Iran have nukes, when other countries have them? Pointed out in this video, how many countries have Iran attacked in the last 10-20 years? America have them and how many countries haven't they attacked in the last 20 years?
Bibi Netanyahu has some front talking about nukes, when they go into Gaza every couple of years to "mow the lawn", and have poured white phosphorus over schools and hospitals, as well as a leading Israeli historian saying that they have European capitals as targets for their nukes and if anyone tries to bring them down, they'll bring us down with them. Talk about double standards....
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MeBxxvmlOk
-
Even North Korea has nukes, and a sworn enemy even, and no nuclear holocaust.
Everyone who knows something about nukes, know about "MAD", Mutually Assured Destruction, so, eh... it makes no difference if a country has nukes, they aren't gonna be more likely to use them offensively than anyone else - North Korea, the grand pariah of the world, being the best example.
With Israel most likely having nukes, MAD becomes even more relevant, since Israel is Iran's "sworn enemy", meaning, it is very unlikely Iran will be an offender with nukes, knowing full well that Israel has the capacity to retaliate thoroughly.
-
they go into Gaza every couple of years to "mow the lawn", and have poured white phosphorus over schools and hospitals
You answered your own question. They can't have nukes because they would use them.
-
With Israel most likely having nukes, MAD becomes even more relevant, since Israel is Iran's "sworn enemy", meaning, it is very unlikely Iran will be an offender with nukes, knowing full well that Israel has the capacity to retaliate thoroughly.
MAD only works if both sides can obliterate all life on the planet. Iran and Isreal obliterating each other causes a lot of inconvenience for the rest of us, and could poison an entire continent that the rest of us want to use. When the leaders of both countries can order launches from a beach in the Bahamas, the deterrence calculus isn't the same.
-
With Israel most likely having nukes, MAD becomes even more relevant, since Israel is Iran's "sworn enemy", meaning, it is very unlikely Iran will be an offender with nukes, knowing full well that Israel has the capacity to retaliate thoroughly.
MAD only works if both sides can obliterate all life on the planet. Iran and Isreal obliterating each other causes a lot of inconvenience for the rest of us, and could poison an entire continent that the rest of us want to use. When the leaders of both countries can order launches from a beach in the Bahamas, the deterrence calculus isn't the same.
It should be enough that the other side can obliterate important cultural centres of your civilization - your country. I guess the leaders can gamble to throw the future of their country to the dogs - but they better have a good retirement plan, if so. I mean, there's a reason even Bush jr didn't just launch nukes at Iran, or Iraq, or Russia for that matter - MAD/crushing unpopularity back home forcing him to either step down, or do a coup. They're very few and far between those leaders so ruthless and cynical, they're willing to destroy their entire nation, and turn it to complete gravel. I can only think of Hitler right now, and that decision made him commit suicide, no ammount of Bahamas hide-aways could save him from the utter destruction of his homeland.
-
they go into Gaza every couple of years to "mow the lawn", and have poured white phosphorus over schools and hospitals
You answered your own question. They can't have nukes because they would use them.
He is a bit slow, you know. :zoinks:
-
but they better have a good retirement plan, if so. I mean, there's a reason even Bush jr didn't just launch nukes at Iran, or Iraq, or Russia for that matter - MAD/crushing unpopularity back home forcing him to either step down, or do a coup. They're very few and far between those leaders so ruthless and cynical, they're willing to destroy their entire nation, and turn it to complete gravel. I can only think of Hitler right now, and that decision made him commit suicide, no ammount of Bahamas hide-aways could save him from the utter destruction of his homeland.
Their retirement plan is 72 virgins. Death is not an obstacle. I'm pretty sure that Ali Khamenei would view the obliteration of his entire country in holy jew-killing fire to be nothing more than their deliverance unto a loving Allah who will reward them all with lots of awkward pre-teen sex.
-
And if Pakistan is overrun by ISIS, holy shit :poo:
-
Even North Korea has nukes, and a sworn enemy even, and no nuclear holocaust.
North Korea's nuclear arsenal is nothing compared to the arsenal the US has. North Korea would only be able to take out one American state at best whereas the US could obliterate the entire country.
Of course, not without a lot of radiation spilling into South Korea and China. The US is allies with South Korea and they do not want to piss off China.
Bibi Netanyahu has some front talking about nukes, when they go into Gaza every couple of years to "mow the lawn", and have poured white phosphorus over schools and hospitals, as well as a leading Israeli historian saying that they have European capitals as targets for their nukes and if anyone tries to bring them down, they'll bring us down with them. Talk about double standards....
Because the US and Israel are best buddies. As long as you're best buddies with the US you can get away with anything. If you're not, the second you commit a crime against humanity, you're not in the Western World and you have oil, rest assured the US and it's best buddy the UK will be all over your country like a British MP over a child.
-
but they better have a good retirement plan, if so. I mean, there's a reason even Bush jr didn't just launch nukes at Iran, or Iraq, or Russia for that matter - MAD/crushing unpopularity back home forcing him to either step down, or do a coup. They're very few and far between those leaders so ruthless and cynical, they're willing to destroy their entire nation, and turn it to complete gravel. I can only think of Hitler right now, and that decision made him commit suicide, no ammount of Bahamas hide-aways could save him from the utter destruction of his homeland.
Their retirement plan is 72 virgins. Death is not an obstacle. I'm pretty sure that Ali Khamenei would view the obliteration of his entire country in holy jew-killing fire to be nothing more than their deliverance unto a loving Allah who will reward them all with lots of awkward pre-teen sex.
Israel army rides out T-shirt row
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45594000/jpg/_45594409_1.jpg)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7960071.stm
-
but they better have a good retirement plan, if so. I mean, there's a reason even Bush jr didn't just launch nukes at Iran, or Iraq, or Russia for that matter - MAD/crushing unpopularity back home forcing him to either step down, or do a coup. They're very few and far between those leaders so ruthless and cynical, they're willing to destroy their entire nation, and turn it to complete gravel. I can only think of Hitler right now, and that decision made him commit suicide, no ammount of Bahamas hide-aways could save him from the utter destruction of his homeland.
Their retirement plan is 72 virgins. Death is not an obstacle. I'm pretty sure that Ali Khamenei would view the obliteration of his entire country in holy jew-killing fire to be nothing more than their deliverance unto a loving Allah who will reward them all with lots of awkward pre-teen sex.
Israel army rides out T-shirt row
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45594000/jpg/_45594409_1.jpg)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7960071.stm
It's so fucking obvious what the Israelis want, and what they're doing. I am both amazed and disgusted that the IDF's campaign of genocide is supported so blindly by the rest of the world.
-
but they better have a good retirement plan, if so. I mean, there's a reason even Bush jr didn't just launch nukes at Iran, or Iraq, or Russia for that matter - MAD/crushing unpopularity back home forcing him to either step down, or do a coup. They're very few and far between those leaders so ruthless and cynical, they're willing to destroy their entire nation, and turn it to complete gravel. I can only think of Hitler right now, and that decision made him commit suicide, no ammount of Bahamas hide-aways could save him from the utter destruction of his homeland.
Their retirement plan is 72 virgins. Death is not an obstacle. I'm pretty sure that Ali Khamenei would view the obliteration of his entire country in holy jew-killing fire to be nothing more than their deliverance unto a loving Allah who will reward them all with lots of awkward pre-teen sex.
Israel army rides out T-shirt row
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45594000/jpg/_45594409_1.jpg)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7960071.stm
It's so fucking obvious what the Israelis want, and what they're doing. I am both amazed and disgusted that the IDF's campaign of genocide is supported so blindly by the rest of the world.
Or here.
-
I weep for humanity.
-
When enough people get pissed off at what is going on then the shit hits the fan and things are forced to change back. You can't control reality. The universe resets itself and dickslaps the tyrants who try to exploit everyone.
-
they go into Gaza every couple of years to "mow the lawn", and have poured white phosphorus over schools and hospitals
You answered your own question. They can't have nukes because they would use them.f
No i didn't. And you quoted me like i was asking why Israel couldn't have them. Apart from Israeli propaganda, what evidence suggests Iran would use nukes? Israel goes on about the danger of Iran having them when Israel has used chemical weapons on schools and hospitals.
Also, the US have used nukes, why are they allowed them?
-
Even North Korea has nukes, and a sworn enemy even, and no nuclear holocaust.
North Korea's nuclear arsenal is nothing compared to the arsenal the US has. North Korea would only be able to take out one American state at best whereas the US could obliterate the entire country.
Of course, not without a lot of radiation spilling into South Korea and China. The US is allies with South Korea and they do not want to piss off China.
NK isn't about taking out American states, it's about nuking Seoul :D China did a similar reminder with their own arsenal - not officially - as unofficially as it gets, scower the Wikileaks for it - but they admitted that their own nuclear arsenal is primarily "meant" for Taiwan (Republic of China)
This makes tactical sense, since NK has sworn to retake the south, and PRC has sworn to retake the ROC - and these ambitions outweigh any opposition they might have against America. If "shit hit the fan" between mainland and insular China, the nuclear arsenal would ensure that the war was as brief as possible, and mainland China would simply step off the boats, and retake the island, without much infantry fighting.
China has also (in Wikileaks) admitted to not giving a shit anout NK, and that if they do invade SK, they will not oppose a western intervention.
So, it still comes back to common sense - NK has the nukes, they have no real allies, they have nothing to lose - they could start launching those nukes on Seoul today, right this moment, but they won't because it's too destructive a thing to do, it backfires too hard. It's easy to think of "pariah countries" as illogical and cooky, but they DO posess a survival instinct :D
-
they go into Gaza every couple of years to "mow the lawn", and have poured white phosphorus over schools and hospitals
You answered your own question. They can't have nukes because they would use them.f
No i didn't. And you quoted me like i was asking why Israel couldn't have them. Apart from Israeli propaganda, what evidence suggests Iran would use nukes? Israel goes on about the danger of Iran having them when Israel has used chemical weapons on schools and hospitals.
Also, the US have used nukes, why are they allowed them?
Because they invented them, and who the fuck is going to take them away?
-
Also, the US have used nukes, why are they allowed them?
The same reason all UN security council members are allowed, world nuclear arms treaty.
-
they go into Gaza every couple of years to "mow the lawn", and have poured white phosphorus over schools and hospitals
You answered your own question. They can't have nukes because they would use them.f
No i didn't. And you quoted me like i was asking why Israel couldn't have them. Apart from Israeli propaganda, what evidence suggests Iran would use nukes? Israel goes on about the danger of Iran having them when Israel has used chemical weapons on schools and hospitals.
Also, the US have used nukes, why are they allowed them?
Because they invented them, and who the fuck is going to take them away?
Too subtle for Benji.
-
they go into Gaza every couple of years to "mow the lawn", and have poured white phosphorus over schools and hospitals
You answered your own question. They can't have nukes because they would use them.f
No i didn't. And you quoted me like i was asking why Israel couldn't have them. Apart from Israeli propaganda, what evidence suggests Iran would use nukes? Israel goes on about the danger of Iran having them when Israel has used chemical weapons on schools and hospitals.
Also, the US have used nukes, why are they allowed them?
Because they invented them, and who the fuck is going to take them away?
Themselves. They along with Israel are the ones who put pressure on Iran, as Iran having nukes is a "threat". Well a pair of countries that between them have used nukes, chemical weapons and are continuously involved in warfare are more of a threat than anyone else, so why don't they practice what they preach? As i've said, everyone should have them or no one should.
-
no one should.
That's the point of the treaty. The security council members will never be expected to disarm until all other countries enter the treaty, disarm, and have transparency of uranium enrichment programs. It may never actually happen, though treaty member with a history of concealing uranium enrichment programs while part of the treaty do make it a longer process. Iran can't have nuclear weapons because they said they wont.
-
they go into Gaza every couple of years to "mow the lawn", and have poured white phosphorus over schools and hospitals
You answered your own question. They can't have nukes because they would use them.f
No i didn't. And you quoted me like i was asking why Israel couldn't have them. Apart from Israeli propaganda, what evidence suggests Iran would use nukes? Israel goes on about the danger of Iran having them when Israel has used chemical weapons on schools and hospitals.
Also, the US have used nukes, why are they allowed them?
Because they invented them, and who the fuck is going to take them away?
Themselves. They along with Israel are the ones who put pressure on Iran, as Iran having nukes is a "threat". Well a pair of countries that between them have used nukes, chemical weapons and are continuously involved in warfare are more of a threat than anyone else, so why don't they practice what they preach? As i've said, everyone should have them or no one should.
This is sort of sweet. Stupid, but sweet.
-
they go into Gaza every couple of years to "mow the lawn", and have poured white phosphorus over schools and hospitals
You answered your own question. They can't have nukes because they would use them.f
No i didn't. And you quoted me like i was asking why Israel couldn't have them. Apart from Israeli propaganda, what evidence suggests Iran would use nukes? Israel goes on about the danger of Iran having them when Israel has used chemical weapons on schools and hospitals.
Also, the US have used nukes, why are they allowed them?
Because they invented them, and who the fuck is going to take them away?
Themselves. They along with Israel are the ones who put pressure on Iran, as Iran having nukes is a "threat". Well a pair of countries that between them have used nukes, chemical weapons and are continuously involved in warfare are more of a threat than anyone else, so why don't they practice what they preach? As i've said, everyone should have them or no one should.
Well shit ... did you call them all up and tell them?
-
I think he should.
-
I find it amusing that you are assuming that i'm being naive about this and don't understand how things work. I'm testing to see if others are consistent. Moronic odeon thinking it's stupid for me to demand that the world does adhere to a basic principle "practice what you preach".
I'm fully aware that America, the biggest terrorist state on earth has full control and doesn't have to abide by the same standards as it's non "allies". Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan should have had nukes, as should Iran, then the Middle East could be protected from the US and Israel.
-
In reality, no countries who don't already have nukes are allowed to have them, but at the same time, those who do have been required to give them up since 1968.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons
-
And those already with them are breaking International Law by continuing to invest billions in developing and researching ways to perfect our nukes, so it's beyond hilarious that we go on about Iran.
-
In reality, all countries are allowed to have nukes, all they must do is withdraw from the treaty or never join it in the first place, like Isreal and North Korea as examples. In reality, the treaty allows for arms sharing so there are countries who have nuclear arms which are simply housed in allied countries within the security council, which allows them to both have access to nuclear arms and still maintain their end of treaty agreements. Statements like, the US is in charge, does give an impression of lack of understanding of how things work. Security council members have equal voting and veto power within the UN. Wondering exactly which international law is being broken; that makes no sense. If it's laughable to go on about Iran, then stop going on about Iran.
-
No they are not. Since 1996, all countries have been obliged to get rid of the ones they already have, as well as no new countries being able to get them, this was the compromise. So with any country still spending money to develop and perfect them, they have been breaking International Law for almost 20 years. The world gathers together to stop Iran possibly getting nukes, and is ok with the US having them, even though the US has used them, they've payed for Israel to use chemical weapons on schools and hospitals and have been supporting a brutal and illegal occupation for nearly 50 years. In a sane world, the rest of the world would be going to great trouble to get the US to give up their nukes.
I'm talking about any country going on about Iran developing nukes when countries who are endlessly at war already have hundreds of them.
-
That's incorrect. A treaty isn't an international law; it's a treaty which Israel hasn't joined. Security council members are authorized nuclear states under the terms of the treaty and are in no way obligated to disarm at this point in time or at any previous point in time. The rest of the world would be going to great trouble to get any particular superpower to give up their nuclear weapons, because other countries without nuclear arms currently rely on their allies within the security council to defend them in the event they're faced with nuclear attack. One day it may be an actuality for world superpowers to be expected to disarm, and the last fifty years has shown enormous progress in that direction, maybe more progress than any other publicly known UN initiative. You're correct, in that ideally no one should have nuclear arms under the NPT, and haven't argued against that; it simply hasn't reached that level of it's potential. The question of why has been asked in the OP of this thread; and that why has been answered to my understanding. According to Iran, Iran has no intention of developing nuclear arms, so this discussion is moot anyway. If you already know why the point of asking why is also moot.
-
I'm testing to see if others are consistent.
I think you were hoping someone would bash Iran, but they didn't. :hahaha:
-
I find it amusing that you are assuming that i'm being naive about this and don't understand how things work. I'm testing to see if others are consistent. Moronic odeon thinking it's stupid for me to demand that the world does adhere to a basic principle "practice what you preach".
It is stupid and it is unrealistic, but if you are going to dream, why not dream big?
-
Just the other day, July 16, was the 70th anniversary of the Trinity test :nerdy:
-
Just the other day, July 16, was the 70th anniversary of the Trinity test :nerdy:
Since that day, thousands of nuclear test explosions have been conducted. The whole world should all be glowing right now. :zoinks:
-
When enough people get pissed off at what is going on then the shit hits the fan and things are forced to change back. You can't control reality. The universe resets itself and dickslaps the tyrants who try to exploit everyone.
Not always. This is the real world and in the real world sometimes the bad guys win.
-
When enough people get pissed off at what is going on then the shit hits the fan and things are forced to change back. You can't control reality. The universe resets itself and dickslaps the tyrants who try to exploit everyone.
Not always. This is the real world and in the real world sometimes the bad guys win.
They never agree with each other always trying to control everyone and everything. Always stabbing each other in the backs and destroying everything around them in the process leaving rubble left behind. A lot will be destroyed before it is rebuilt. Unless we all die.
-
That's incorrect. A treaty isn't an international law
You forgot to capitalize it as though it were some proper noun ;)
-
That's incorrect. A treaty isn't an international law; it's a treaty which Israel hasn't joined. Security council members are authorized nuclear states under the terms of the treaty and are in no way obligated to disarm at this point in time or at any previous point in time. The rest of the world would be going to great trouble to get any particular superpower to give up their nuclear weapons, because other countries without nuclear arms currently rely on their allies within the security council to defend them in the event they're faced with nuclear attack. One day it may be an actuality for world superpowers to be expected to disarm, and the last fifty years has shown enormous progress in that direction, maybe more progress than any other publicly known UN initiative. You're correct, in that ideally no one should have nuclear arms under the NPT, and haven't argued against that; it simply hasn't reached that level of it's potential. The question of why has been asked in the OP of this thread; and that why has been answered to my understanding. According to Iran, Iran has no intention of developing nuclear arms, so this discussion is moot anyway. If you already know why the point of asking why is also moot.
Yes they are obligated to disarm, that's the whole point of the treaty lol. The rest of the world have no power. Israel has nukes and it relies on the US with nukes to support it in whatever it does. It lies about its nukes. Why should the non nuclear states keep their end of the deal then if the nuclear ones don't? Let's have some consistency here. Because i'm taking the piss. The manic Netanyahu has been going on about Iran's nukes as have American politicians for years now, while at the same time it's ok for those countries to have nukes, use them, and use chemical weapons on schools and hospitals. It's a joke. For one, Iran weren't developing nukes, but two, they should be able to have them, along with every other country, or none as I said. All I want is consistency.
-
I'm testing to see if others are consistent.
I think you were hoping someone would bash Iran, but they didn't. :hahaha:
:congrats:
-
I find it amusing that you are assuming that i'm being naive about this and don't understand how things work. I'm testing to see if others are consistent. Moronic odeon thinking it's stupid for me to demand that the world does adhere to a basic principle "practice what you preach".
It is stupid and it is unrealistic, but if you are going to dream, why not dream big?
It is stupid to expect people who preach to practice their preaching's? I know it's unrealistic, because the masses are too thick and ignorant to do anything about it. Only the people can stop these crooks, but there's more important things on TV like the X Factor etc,
-
That's incorrect. A treaty isn't an international law
You forgot to capitalize it as though it were some proper noun ;)
I'm fully aware that International Law is a farce.
-
Because i'm taking the piss.
Pardon my misunderstanding. Nevermind, then.
-
I want to know why Israel can have booze and Iran can't. That aint fair. :zoinks:
-
I find it amusing that you are assuming that i'm being naive about this and don't understand how things work. I'm testing to see if others are consistent. Moronic odeon thinking it's stupid for me to demand that the world does adhere to a basic principle "practice what you preach".
It is stupid and it is unrealistic, but if you are going to dream, why not dream big?
It is stupid to expect people who preach to practice their preaching's? I know it's unrealistic, because the masses are too thick and ignorant to do anything about it. Only the people can stop these crooks, but there's more important things on TV like the X Factor etc,
Your naïvety is quite endearing.
-
I want to know why Israel can have booze and Iran can't. That aint fair. :zoinks:
Tons of booze in Iran, mostly "under the counter", but also in many a house-hold.
I find it interesting, but it's easy to compare to many other "soft" bans around the world, like cannabis in Spain or Portugal, it is banned, it is illegal, but it has been so normalized (and decriminalized, to be fair) you see people rolling joints openly, in cafeterias
Home made alcohol here is illegal, and cops sometimes do raids for bigger batches - however, a single bottle of *pure* alcohol is often overlooked and ignored, some cops would even "feel bad" for making a big fuss about some grown, working man hiding away a bottle of alcohol, and would let him keep it.
Teens sometimes have their alcohol poured out, without any more fuss made about it.
The same cops, same country, will flip their lid if they find ANY hash on you. ANY. People I know have been dragged in because of residue on their shoe-laces :D
But yeah, it's easy to think of another culture as "devoid" of certain things - because we're told it's banned there.
-
I'm trolling in a troll thread, zeg. :lol1:
But yeah, it's easy to think of another culture as "devoid" of certain things - because we're told it's banned there.
Like secret nuclear arms programs? :zoinks:
-
Where's the fun in having a secret nuclear arms programme if you don't drink? :P
-
Iran can't have a secret nuclear program, because if they have one, we would all be staring right at it, so it wouldn't be secret :0 0:
I still say North Korea is a good gauge to go by, when it comes to the pinnacle of fanatical government - with their hands on nuclear weapons: Nothing bad happens, it's a deterent. In Iran's case, it is to deter Israel, which most likely has several nukes.
With a one-on-one situation, we can then look at India and Pakistan, both whom have been quite direct in their rethorics including nukes, and who have also gone through several armed confrontations, including open war, while being nuclear powers, without resorting to nuclear attacks. Again - sworn enemies, full ability to launch and withstand, still showing restraint.
Nuclear weapons are a "dead man's switch", they're a guarantee against an overwhelming attack. Nuclear powers today are very varied, from at-constant-war powers like USA, corrupt holes like Russia, communist superpower China, poor dirthole India, fanatical little North Korea, they all keep the exact same passive strategy with their nukes.
-
they all keep the exact same passive strategy with their nukes.
Not exactly. Treaty agreements within the last twenty years also include terms against detonation for testing, which non-treaty members have no reason to adhere, and haven't. Authorized nuclear state passive strategy is also based in treaty agreements to not initiate nuclear force, but rather only in retaliation to nuclear strike, or defending allies in retaliation to nuclear strike.
-
I still say North Korea is a good gauge to go by, when it comes to the pinnacle of fanatical government - with their hands on nuclear weapons: Nothing bad happens, it's a deterent.
World government conspiracy and global control initiatives within the UN is a favorite topic, and it's annoying to discuss it within conversational guidelines of childish idealism of how the world isn't fair, and equally annoying to discuss it based on emotional rights of trust, and equally annoying when nuclear arms discussions are confined to discussions of war. It putrefies my interest in the topic. It's pointless leaving out the UK and France when listing nuclear states of the world. What government isn't a corrupt hole? Every nuclear state has stained the planet with arms testing, using test grounds convenient only to them and keeping detonations hidden from the general public. Every nuclear power has displayed reasons for mistrust with their own misconduct in the practice of using nuclear arms. Yes, something bad happens.
-
it's annoying
:hahaha:
-
Am I the only one who thinks Iran will benefit more from the lifting of UN sanctions than the right to produce weapons grade uranium? The only one who thinks Iran doesn't need nuclear arms when they have an ally in Russia? The only one who sees this as a progressive step toward Iran's positive relations with the entire world? Am I the only one seeing history being made?
-
I am very disappointment with the lack of funny jokes available for this topic. It seems the only ones with anything funny to say are the citizens of Iran. They're saying things like, I went to the grocery store and there's still no whiskey, what kind of deal is that? Should I still say down with America in my prayers? Make sure everyone knows this is only a nuclear issue and people shouldn't start walking around wearing only their tops and shorts. Those freaking Iranians are hilarious. It's a shame they don't have their own memes. :lol1:
-
I'd like to see some political cartoons from other countries on this topic. Anyone have any? :orly:
-
Am I the only one who thinks Iran will benefit more from the lifting of UN sanctions than the right to produce weapons grade uranium? The only one who thinks Iran doesn't need nuclear arms when they have an ally in Russia? The only one who sees this as a progressive step toward Iran's positive relations with the entire world? Am I the only one seeing history being made?
No, you're not the only one.
-
Am I the only one who thinks Iran will benefit more from the lifting of UN sanctions than the right to produce weapons grade uranium? The only one who thinks Iran doesn't need nuclear arms when they have an ally in Russia? The only one who sees this as a progressive step toward Iran's positive relations with the entire world? Am I the only one seeing history being made?
Nope, you are not the only one.
-
Am I the only one who thinks Iran will benefit more from the lifting of UN sanctions than the right to produce weapons grade uranium? The only one who thinks Iran doesn't need nuclear arms when they have an ally in Russia? The only one who sees this as a progressive step toward Iran's positive relations with the entire world? Am I the only one seeing history being made?
You're probably the only one getting so aggitated about it... :D
Outside America, we only need to know that America has nukes, and then the rest feels a bit irrelevant. You mentioned France after I mentioned North Korea, China, India, Russia and the US?
As if France is in any way more of a nuclear risk than those five?
I know EXACTLY what the nuclear powers are - in order of number of nuclear warheads:
USA
Russia
China
France
Britain
Israel
Pakistan
India
North Korea
So chill. My point was - none of them have started a nuclear war. The only one who has ever used bombs against others in war is the US - twice. The only one who has killed people with nuclear testing is the US - once.
I'm saying none of these countries, as varied as they are, have started a nuclear war - so if we go by experience, I don't understand why people think Iran will BOOM start a nuclear holocaust just-because. North Korea IS a good gauge to go by - MUCH better than France, because France doesn't have a "sworn enemy" to destroy. NK does. Relax, and don't be so nitpicky. Of course nuclear testing is "a bad thing", it kills like a billion beetles and earth-worms.
-
Discussing world nuclear disarmament initiatives with people who are advocating a new nuclear state doesn't promote any level of chill, so no. It's not even possible to know how many people have died as a result of nuclear testing fallout, so to minimalize it to bugs and worms is too flippant to inspire a mature response.
-
No, you're not the only one.
Nope, you are not the only one.
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--B6gV0fly--/dn0q7tyk3opf1w48kcle.jpg)
-
Discussing world nuclear disarmament initiatives with people who are advocating a new nuclear state doesn't promote any level of chill, so no. It's not even possible to know how many people have died as a result of nuclear testing fallout, so to minimalize it to bugs and worms is too flippant to inspire a mature response.
I'm not promoting :D
I'm just saying, look... let's be honest. It doesn't get much worse than USA with nukes, a country at war all the time - and one who has used nukes twice. Dislike it all you like.
If that's not the best example, then it doesn't get much worse than North Korea with nukes.
Iran is neither more powerful than USA, or more reckless than North Korea. I'm just saying that IF Iran aquires nuclear weapons, the world will not enter some "new stage" of risk or danger.
I'm not saying Iran *should*, when I explain that Iran arms up in order to meet Israel - I'm *not* giving them "the right" - I am offering a reasoning behind "they won't start a nuclear war" - they aren't aquiring nukes to nuke America, for example - as many Americans did think when it came to North Korea "omg can they reach California", their main priority is using it as a dead-man switch, and their 2nd priority is using it against South Korea. China against Taiwan. India and Pakistan each others, and Iran Israel.
I'm not advocating "more nukes", that would be completely unreasonable...
There's a middle ground though. Allowing Iran to exist alongside US and North Korea, and do what they do, is not necesarily the worst thing in the universe.
-
Then you've been having a trust based conversation with yourself because haven't seen anyone say Iran shouldn't have nuclear arms because they can't be trusted not to start a nuclear war, nor anyone say existing nuclear states should have them because they can be trusted otherwise. Without that context, these statements appear to not only advocate Iran as a new nuclear state, but any non-nuclear country with a sworn nuclear enemy as needing nuclear arms as leverage, and promoting some right for them to have them. Understood this topic to be a discussion based on the why of the matter, and the why of which states can/cannot have nuclear arms has nothing to do with fairness, general public trust in other countries, or nuclear acts which predate the NPT. We're not having the same conversation.
-
The "why" isn't really a debate, neither is "why not", like you say, one just have to check what they signed last, case closed.
But it's more intellectually stimulating to look at the philosophical aspects of it, than the yes-or-no aspects, where existing documents easily determine the "correct answer" :D
-
Tend to not find intellectual stimulation in philosophical discussion, and find them to be more unrealistic impractical hypothetical conversations based in emotion. Rarely have any interest in waxing philosophical, as their are no correct answers in philosophy and the only logical philosophical stance is one of existential nihilism, so it's impossible for me to have any sense of appreciation for my own philosophical stance. Everyone is going to die anyway, nothing actually matters, and nuclear arms are no exception to that. There you go. :laugh:
-
Any country that has nuclear weapons has the "doomsday button" and thus the power to end the world as we know it with a simple press of a button.
No one should have that kind of power. I think the question we should be asking isn't "should Iran be allowed nuclear weapons" and instead "should anyone have nuclear weapons?"
-
I'd like to see some political cartoons from other countries on this topic. Anyone have any? :orly:
What? Nothing? The UK lifting it's own individual sanctions from Iran is generating nary a political cartoon? >:( I don't care what direction they're slanted. Someone please gimme. :autism:
-
Any country that has nuclear weapons has the "doomsday button" and thus the power to end the world as we know it with a simple press of a button.
No one should have that kind of power. I think the question we should be asking isn't "should Iran be allowed nuclear weapons" and instead "should anyone have nuclear weapons?"
I think that too is a bit of a reach, based on quick assumption (philosophical aspect alert! :green: ) let's say Iran blasts the hell out of Israel, why should that cause some kind of cascade resulting in ending the world (as we know it), well, okay, it would "end the world with israel in it" or "end the world with most of iran", but not thaaat much else.
Even an all-out between USA and China would affect mostly only USA and China, since China don't have any allies, and China in return have about 200 warheads, not exactly enough to litter the world in glowing mushrooms.
These were American targets btw, in Norway :D In-case-we-flip targets :D
(and when I say "affect" I mean there is a big difference between radioactive rainfall, and obliterated capitals)
A more daunting confrontation would of course be Russia vs NATO, here we have the possibility to really shower the place in nukes, well - limited mostly to western world + russia, and again - limited only to Russia, since Russia is the only "antagonist" nuclear power with the capacity to cause significant damage globally
So
Let's sing the relax-song together, everyone, hand in hand!
Followed by the aw-fuck-it-More-nukes!-song afterwards!
-
CIA I think, or someone like that, made a very interesting calculation of a nuclear exchange, like an "all out" with predictions and calculations. It was quite interesting
The anticipated destruction is both overwhelming - and overcomable at the same time, humanity is strong like that. The initial exchange would probably cause some hundred million deaths world wide, in the relevant metropolitan areas mostly, followed by some hundreds of millions more in the aftermath. A population of for example 7 billion could be dented down to 6-6,5, for then to grow more slowly for a period of time
I'm not making much of a point here, other than to say - nuclear war isn't going to exterminate mankind. No other point, not saying it's a walk in the park or anything, but humanity is very strong. Even India said it about Pakistan's arsenal of about 200, that India can take it. India doubted Pakistan could take the returning 200 warheads, which is also true - some regions would be markantly more devastated than others if all the missiles flew
In the "War Atlas" I used to flip through as a kid, there was a hypothetical nuke-target map, based on the cold war, and Trondheim had 2 dots on it! TWO! :D Norway had 20-some
-
I think you are incorrect.
The target areas would have catastrophic loss of life, then the surrounding areas with the blast. Then of course the fallout and what goes up into the atmosphere, choking out sunlight in a radioactive haze that would affect the air, water, vegetation and animals.
The effect of one nuclear warhead would be bad. Talking worst case? The Earth wouldn't explode or anything but humanity would be decimated.
-
Litterally decimated if so, 700 million dead out of 7 billion total, which is pretty much the calculation which I base my observations on.
So, yeah, I'm just countering the idea that a nuclear exchange would be the end of humanity - or any other "apocalyptic" idea that is easily associated with a nuclear war (like, the earth would indeed not explode), not that this idea has been perpetuated on this forum any. Just throwing it out there.
But sure, 700 million dead is WW2 times 15. We would never have seen anything like it.
-
Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. ~Isaiah 13:9
-
Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. ~Isaiah 13:9
Everything is relative, a nuclear bomb is the biggest bomb we humans can make - but the Lord might much more likely come as a massive Earth-not-give-a-shit-ing meteor, just ka-plaf into the surface, and - with enough mass - just vibrate all surface material to gas in an instant. I'm afraid this approach wouldn't discriminate much between sinner/non-sinner though :I
But I like the possibility, that it exists out there. It's very magnificent!
-
Lots of parking space made available. :zoinks:
-
Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. ~Isaiah 13:9
Everything is relative, a nuclear bomb is the biggest bomb we humans can make - but the Lord might much more likely come as a massive Earth-not-give-a-shit-ing meteor, just ka-plaf into the surface, and - with enough mass - just vibrate all surface material to gas in an instant. I'm afraid this approach wouldn't discriminate much between sinner/non-sinner though :I
But I like the possibility, that it exists out there. It's very magnificent!
According to the bible everyone is a sinner, though when quoting the bible one can always assume me to be facetious. Was being philosophical. :laugh:
-
Israel has them, that's what we really need to worry about. Our leaders pander to them and are terrified of them, it's pathetic, but not hard to understand why.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
-
Welcome back.
-
This thread is so three months ago.
-
This thread is so three months ago.
Floor tantrums shouting it's not fair will always be popular. :zoinks:
-
This thread is so three months ago.
Aren't most threads on here?
-
And it was only the other day that Netanyahu gave his 40 seconds of silence or whatever on Iran.
-
Netanyahu is the antichrist