Iran and Nukes

[red-beard]

Why shouldn't Iran be "allowed" to have them?

If no, how can they truely be stopped?

[cool_chick]

I feel I'm falling into a trap here ... but I'll bite anyway.

I have often wondered why some countries are allowed to defend themseslves, even build new ones (ourselves included), yet other countries are not allowed to defend themselves.

If I were a country, I'd sure like to have the ability to defend myself against attack.

[on-ramp]

Iran is in the "axis of evil", they are evil, the evil-doers can not have nucular weapons.....they will use their weapons to kill thousands of innocent people....your monkey president has told you this, he has experience in this area. dont doubt him, he knows what he's talking about.

[dhoward]

In fact, the control of the proliferation of 'nuculer weapons is not up to the United States, or Dubya. The counties already possesing those weapons are charged with policing the the rest of the world. If you had an unstable neighbor, with a history of mental illness and violence, would you want him buying a bunch of shotguns and ammunition? Simplistic, but similar.
Not saying that's right, but it's what we have. Probably a good thing, but I "have my head in the sand".

[widebody911]

But having nukes has a strange side effect - nobody will invade you. Hence the rush to get nukes.

[dhoward]

"....Man, I wish we had us one of them Doomsday machines!"

[928ram]

But having nukes has a strange side effect - nobody will invade you. Hence the rush to get nukes.

Except that nukes are useless against an invading force unless you plan on wiping out your own fighters/towns/civilians.
Recent history would certainly have Iran fearing possible invasion from Saddam were he still in power, but pursuing delivery vehicles with a mere 1200 mile range protects against who at this point?

[dd74]

The nukes are for Israel or in a pinch, Saudi Arabia. And they'll be used for those countries if the U.S. invades Iran, just as they've done with Iraq.

That's why they should have nukes.

Why they shouldn't have nukes is for the same reason: they could be used on Israel or in a pinch, Saudi Arabia.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by 928ram
Except that nukes are useless against an invading force unless you plan on wiping out your own fighters/towns/civilians.

No, silly, you don't use them on your home turf! But your neighbors know that if they send forces to invaded, they won't have much of a home to return to.

[dd74]

Originally posted by widebody911
No, silly, you don't use them on your home turf! But your neighbors know that if they send forces to invaded, they won't have much of a home to return to.

That's a Cold War-era theory.

Iran having nukes is a different scenario. It draws in more than just the preconceived U.S.-Iran conflict.

[kach22i]

Originally posted by 928ram
Recent history would certainly have Iran fearing possible invasion from Saddam were he still in power, but pursuing delivery vehicles with a mere 1200 mile range protects against who at this point?

You have a good point, but forget that US Middle-east policy is all about Israel- they are well within that radius.

Recent history may include events only 15 years old?

When George Bush senior (GWHB) suckered Saddam into invading Kuwait it was for a good reason.

If Saddam could use an ICBM 15 years ago, why not Iran now?

http://www.spacetoday.org/Rockets/Spaceports/Iraq.html

Military missiles. Iraq's space booster may have been a modified version of Argentina's Condor ballistic missile. Such a missile could carry a nuclear warhead 1,240 miles. Iraq also had a 600-mi. missile built around the USSR's Scud.

[jyl]

Originally posted by 928ram
Except that nukes are useless against an invading force unless you plan on wiping out your own fighters/towns/civilians.
Recent history would certainly have Iran fearing possible invasion from Saddam were he still in power, but pursuing delivery vehicles with a mere 1200 mile range protects against who at this point?

You're thinking about nuclear wareheads being used as tactical weapons ("battlefield nukes"). That's not their main value and never has been.

If Iran had nuclear warheads on missiles with a 1200 mile range, and they were faced with invasion, they wouldn't waste their missiles on US armor and infantry. They'd aim them at Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, Turkey, major Middle East oilfields, etc. They'd try to smuggle them into the US, UK, or other Western countries on ocean shipping containers.

What do you think the nuclear destruction of Riyad, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Istanbul, and the five largest MidEast oilfields would would do to the world's political and economic stability? How about the near-shutdown of ocean container cargo shipping? How certain could the US be that we could locate and destroy all the missiles before they could be fired, and all the other bombs before they could be smuggled, considering the failures of intelligence in Iraq? So then under what situation would a US president take the risk of invading Iran?

Add to that the fact that, when you think about it, the US doesn't really have a compelling reason to attack Iran. They don't have huge amounts of oil, they haven't led the list of terrorist-supporting countries (not like Libya who blew up the PanAm flight or the Saudis who have been the terrorists' main money source).

So, if Iran had nuclear weapons and medium-range missiles to put them on, I think they'd be pretty much immune from US invasion.

Edit: I see everyone beat me to this thought. Sorry for the duplicative post.

[928ram]

Ahh, but no place is impervious from several nuclear arsenals perhaps the last that would arrive would be from the US. So nuclear aggression by Iran would surely lead to the end of Iran.
Iran is under no fear of a US invasion, nor aggresive acts from their nieghbors; why nukes? Just because everyone is doing it?
Actually Iran as it stands today will meet it's demise from within; the ruling party is old in it's ways as well as it's years, and the population is very young and freedom oriented.

[red-beard]

First we got the bomb, and that was good, cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then russia got the bomb, but that's OK cause the balance of power's maintained that way.

Who's Next?

[dhoward]

Originally posted by red-beard
Who's Next?

New Zealand.

Sorry. That was totally uncalled for....

[widebody911]

Originally posted by red-beard
First we got the bomb, and that was good, cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then russia got the bomb, but that's OK cause the balance of power's maintained that way.

Who's Next?

Tom Lehrer.

[red-beard]

France got the bomb, but don't you greive, cause they're on our side, I believe.
China's got the bomb, but have no fear. They can't wipe us out for at least 5 years...

Who's next?

[red-beard]

Then Indonesia claimed that they Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right: One for the black and one for the white!

Who's next?

Egypt's - gonna - get - one - too. Just - to - use - on - you - know - who.
So Israel's getting tense, Wants one in self defense. "The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm, But just in case, we better get a bomb!

Who's next?

Luxembourg is next to go. And, who knows, maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm...When Alabama gets the bomb!

Who's next - who's next - who's next?

WHO'S NEXT!

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by 928ram

Actually Iran as it stands today will meet it's demise from within; the ruling party is old in it's ways as well as it's years, and the population is very young and freedom oriented.

ditto.

[azasadny]

Iran claims they want nuclear power for their country. I may be stupid, but I though they had one of the largest oil reserves in the world. Why the heck can't they burn their own oil? Why haven't I heard anyone else ask this question?