Imagine for a minute the US did not possess any nuclear weapons

[NNN0LHI]

And the only country in the world to have used these types of weapons and killed hundreds of thousands of people with them, had in the last ten years or so invaded and occupied two countries on our borders. Say Canada and Mexico were now occupied by hundred of thousands of armed to the teeth soldiers and mercenaries just itching to invade our country and steal our stuff and turn our country into a scene from Mad Max. And the only thing that could prevent that from happening was if we had our own nukes to deter that.

In that situation would you want your country to produce some nuclear weapons? Because that is the situation that Iran finds itself in right now.

How would you feel in this situation?

Don

[BlooInBloo]

1. And there is absolutely NO additional context? None? Zip? Zero? Nada? Zilch?

[tekisui]

2. Yep. If Iran knows what is in its best interest, it will build nukes soon.

Or, reveal that they already have one.

It would be good for us, in that I don't think we would invade a nuclear armed Iran.

[Truth2Tell]

3. Recommended.

:hi: :)

[GreenStormCloud]

4. Then why does Iran continually make threats to wipe Israel off the map? N/T

[protocol rv]

11. Huh, could you show the reference for Iran threatening to wipe Israel off the map?

I wonder, is it possible you watch Faux News? They lie to you all the time. I've never heard a senior official from the Iranian government threatening to wipe Israel off the map.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. Google is your friend.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080300629.html
Ahmadinejad: Destroy Israel, End Crisis

By SEAN YOONG
The Associated Press
Thursday, August 3, 2006; 10:49 AM

PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel. In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate halt to fighting in Lebanon between Israel and the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah.

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," he said.

Ahmadinejad, who has drawn international condemnation with previous calls for Israel to be wiped off the map, said the Middle East would be better off "without the existence of the Zionist regime."

Israel "is an illegitimate regime, there is no legal basis for its existence," he said.

Please note that the link is to the Washington Post.

Is the President of Iran a sufficiently senior official for you?

He has frequently spoke of destroying Israel.

[Statistical]

22. Really then you haven't tried real hard n/t

[Mother Smuckers]

5. I would trust Allah to smite the infidels by magic electric bolts from heaven.

How could that not work?

[provis99]

6. any country that doesn't have nukes is asking for trouble from the US.

North Korea is safe now, because they've got nukes. If Saddam Hussein had been smart rather than honest, he would have told the US that he had dozens of nuclear bombs, and Iraq would never have been invaded; he'd be alive today.

The moral? A metaphorical quote: as Winston Zeddemore says in Ghostbusters after Ray denies being a god, to a god who then feels safe to attack hime: "Ray, when someone asks you if you're a god, you say "YES"!"

[Dreamer Tatum]

9. Ah yes, that bastion of human rights and freedom, North Korea, is safe

from the bloodthirsty American maniacs who, prior to N. Korea's acquisition of nukes, nuked Pyongyang every frickin' WEEKEND.

:eyes:

[Dreamer Tatum]

7. In that completely context-free world, all actions are rationalizable

so your post is completely meaningless.

Nevertheless, let us appeal to Occam:

Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map. What is the easiest way to effect that outcome?

To build nukes, of course.

[pitohui]

8. i'd feel that you are being utterly ridiculous

i fail to see how building a bunch of nukes so that i could have it out w. canada would do anything to protect the usa, sorry -- getting the nukes almost guarantees that sooner or later the war WILL happen and it WILL be nuclear instead of the slow-motion mess that it already is

if my neighbor has a gun, and i go out and buy a gun, it's FAR more likely that we will have a gun battle, in fact, that's how my house got shot up last time, my idiot friend decided that he needed a gun to "protect" himself, yah, that really worked out well...NOT

that stuff abt "an armed society is a polite society?" it's bullshit. it's really really REALLY bullshit. before you buy into the nukes, try it w. conventional weapons -- move into new orleans and see for yourself

if iran wants to glow in the dark, i can understand their eagerness to build more nuclear weapons (i assume they already have atomic weapons, as any college physics major can do that much, and they are not a stupid people) but it's still absolutely idiotic

if they want peace, try not getting involved in so many damn wars, would be my suggestion for iran

would be a nice suggestion for the usa as well frankly...

[MUAD_DIB]

10. Hypotheticals are great, but Iran isn't being invaded presently.

What Iran is happens to be a non-democratically elected theocratic police state. It is not a fair comparison to the US at the present time.

I really don't want to see an Nuclear-armed Iran so I would hope that sanctions and diplomacy will work first.


If the present Iranian regime happens to feel threatened from within or without would they decide that they have no other option than to attack Israel, US interests in the area...or even Europe if they are able to manufacture ICBMs?

That would make Hiroshima and Nagasaki look insignificant in comparison.


That's how I feel about the situation.

[protocol rv]

12. Correction

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons. Nor does it have the enriched uranium to build one. Nor does it have the technology to enrich uranium to weapons grade.

The USA has used nuclear weapons on cities full of civilians. It threatens Iran all the time. Israel has nuclear weapons. It threatens Iran all the time.

The USA lied with Israeli and British help, claiming Iraq had nuclear weapons (WMDs) to justify invading Iraq. Today Iraq is essentially a US colony, and over one million Iraqis have been killed in the process of "pacification" by US imperial troops.

Now that we have the historical record clear...please continue the debate.

[Thothmes]

13. True up to a point. They did not have nuclear weapons

thanks to the IDF in the mid 80s. The "citizens" that that we nucked in 1945 worked for Mitsubishi, Sumitomo, Kawakisaki, etc. They supported the Imperial war effort, just as the Americans supported our war effort working for Kaiser, NNSBDD or Boeing.

[MUAD_DIB]

15. History is lost on some people.

There have been arguments both ways on whether the USA should have bombed the Japanese, but the alternate US landing/invasion could have gone on for some time with horrific casualties.

I also do not forget what the CIA did to a democratically elected Iran in the early 1050s by reinstalling a monarch in Tehran. Regardless of the blowback that we caused in Iran does not excuse the actions of a police state there today. The USA played a part in that history but the present course of the Iranian governing body is not necessarily what I would consider sound policy.

I would really hope that diplomacy and or world sanctions work so that Iran would realize that there are alternatives to going for the bomb.


And in the same regard I would also hope that Israel will stop taking Palestinian land and let the Palestinians have a homeland of their own. If the UN would need to apply sanctions to them then I would approve of it.

[hunter]

17. History has been lost on you.

Once we had the Bomb there was never going to be "...a US landing/invasion could have gone on for some time with horrific casualties."

Harry Truman said ""...If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth..." and he was telling the stark horrible truth.

Any further talk of US landings and bloody ground battles is bullshit meant to ameliorate our guilty consciences.

The U.S. dropped nuclear weapons on civilian populations. That SUCKS.

Furthermore the bombing of Nagasaki was treated essentially as an experiment. We knew we weren't going to have an opportunity to drop a plutonium bomb on a civilian population any time soon, so we did it. The destruction caused by the plutonium bomb was studied and documented with great intensity because we wanted to know exactly what these bombs could do.

Japan was already a smoldering wreck in August, and our plan was to flatten it some more with conventional and nuclear weapons.

Our plutonium production plants in Hanford were huge, built and designed with the expectation we would be fighting nuclear war with Germany and later the Soviet Union. If Japan had not surrendered when they did our plan was to hit them with about a dozen nuclear bombs by December and keep on doing that until there they did surrender of their was nothing left of them to surrender.

The first half dozen bombs were hand made things but US plutonium production was already a huge industrial process and the bomb building assembly lines very soon to followed.

We didn't stop making nuclear bombs when Japan surrendered. We had hundreds of the plutonium "Fat Man" type of bomb by 1950.

[MUAD_DIB]

19. Sorry, you're wrong. Now why is that?

The planing for the invasion of southern Japan, Operation Olympic, was well under way BEFORE the A bomb was functional. They were working on it, but that didn't mean that the US was going to wait.

Originally US intelligence had monitored only 6 Japanese divisions on the southern Japanese island of Kyushu: the place where US forces would strike. That intelligence was later updated to 13 divisions by August. That's 4 more than the US had for an invasion force.

Considering how the Japanese had fought at Okinawa Harry Truman and his generals were starting to have second thoughts about another bloodbath.

Here's a few facts regarding the Battle of Okinawa.

US Troops used in the invasion: 180,000

12,513 killed
38,916 wounded,
33,096 non-combat losses

Total: 84,525


The Japanese were not going to give up easily and they now outnumbered US invasion forces by 4 divisions.
Japan was going to fight to the death.

The USA had a choice: send many US servicemen to their deaths, against an intractable foe on home turf that they knew how to maneuver on, or destroy their will to continue to wage war. The US chose the second option.

And that's historically accurate.

It took two nuclear weapons and a a failed coup d'état against Hirohito before Japan issued the order to surrender.


Your humoruos little words...

Any further talk of US landings and bloody ground battles is bullshit meant to ameliorate our guilty consciences.

I don't have a guilty conscience regarding Harry Truman's decision. This war ended 20 years before I was born. Japan was the aggressor not only against the USA but the British, Chinese and practically anybody else that wasn't Japanese. They were given the choice of surrender. They didn't.

In addition, both Japan and Germany were involved in their own nuclear programs. They didn't succeed where the US prevailed. I'm very happy about that since the war could have gone on for many more years with casualties beyond count.

It is really admirable how you can turn a blind eye to factual information in an unusually DU way. :sarcasm:

Now thank you for giving the rest of the history lesson regarding nuclear production by 1950, but that doesn't change the fact that the USA was involved in WWII and was intent on ending it.

[hunter]

20. The bomb changed everything.

It made all those invasion plans moot.

Construction on the "B" reactor at Hanford began in March 1943, it went critical September 13, 1944.

Once the nuclear time line was clear, "Operation Olympic" was nothing more than a public relations program, a way to say, "Well, we had to use the bomb because...

It was bullshit.

We fully committed to the bomb December 2, 1942, the day Chicago Pile 1 was successfully lit.

[MUAD_DIB]

21. Being fully comitted to the bomb does not mean that the bomb

would have been ready to use in time. It did saves US troop lives so that was a benefit.

Both Japan and Germany were committed to their nuclear programs, but did not commit with enough time or resources.



Thank you for your continued hissyfit that appears to have no relation to the OP. ;)

Nice try though. Gold star for effort.

[hunter]

24. We're the ones who showed the world...

... if you want to be bad ass on the world stage, you build a bomb. If you want to be a really crazy bad ass you use it.

There's nothing rational about it, no matter who's building the bombs.

Iran doesn't have the kind of protection Israel did to build plutonium reactors, which is really the only way to create an arsenal of atomic bombs. The infrastructure required to build uranium bombs is just too damned expensive and and too fragile to devote to bomb making. Uranium enrichment is something you do to make power reactor fuel.

Nuclear power is a very reasonable technology for Iran to pursue. It would let them export the gas and oil they'd otherwise burn for their domestic electric power production.

But it's all dick waving, all of it. Israel has a big dick and an arsenal of bombs, sort of like our own little Mini-Me. I have no doubt Iran would love to make bombs and participate in a similar sort of dick waving.

In the greater scheming of international politics I doubt it makes any difference if Iran has a bomb or not. A weapon you can't use in a rational way is pretty damned worthless. It's a decoration, sort of like the blue stuff male bowerbirds collect to decorate their nests. I suspect if somebody gave Iran a box of bombs, little would change.

Humans are pretty damned irrational whatever their ideologies are. There's no reason to believe Iran with a bomb is any more or less rational than anyone else, or any more or less dangerous.

[MUAD_DIB]

25. I disagree with your assessment....

Seemingly you have forgotten that Japan had...

1) Invaded China

2) Invaded the Philippines

3) Attacked America at Pearl Harbor

4) Attacked British Interests and imprisoned its citizens

5) Attacked US Interests and imprisoned its citizens

Simply put Japan was the aggressor against the USA, Britain, China and anybody else that they wanted to put under their control.

Having to come back to this point time and time again, only for you to gloss over it, makes me wonder what alternate history of the world you may have been reading.

The above being said, or written, the USA was not going to send 9 divisions of troops (Operation Olympic) against 13 Japanese divisions on Kyushu: which would have led to a very protracted battle with an estimated 100,000 US dead and many more wounded. In addition the next stage of invasion (Operation Coronet) against mainland Japan was going to be even nastier: initiating an invasion against a population (military, civilians and children) that was armed with anything that they had left. In effect another bloodbath.

And I have to reinforce the fact that Japan was the aggressor and refused to surrender to Allied terms.

It was a necessary evil that led to the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. It would have been better if the Japanese High command had surrendered, but like Nazi Germany they decided to go out and fight to the bitter end. So it goes.

So America wasn't being a real "crazy-ass" by using the A bomb. They were saving the lives of anywhere from 250,000 to one million US troops.

It sucked, but it happened. Better them than us. That's they way it turned out. If Japan had surrendered then things would have been better. They didn't

You can keep on glossing over this, but it is all part of history and will make your counter argument look somewhat dubious.


Now on to you other points...

Iran doesn't have the kind of protection Israel did to build plutonium reactors, which is really the only way to create an arsenal of atomic bombs. The infrastructure required to build uranium bombs is just too damned expensive and and too fragile to devote to bomb making. Uranium enrichment is something you do to make power reactor fuel.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Nuclear power is a very reasonable technology for Iran to pursue. It would let them export the gas and oil they'd otherwise burn for their domestic electric power production.

Depending on the final use I would agree with you, but as I understand it Iran doesn't have the capacity to refine its own petroleum products. So why would they go to the length to build a hidden nuclear project just so they could sell their oil that they can't burn anyway? Wouldn't they put more resources into petroleum refining?

But it's all dick waving, all of it. Israel has a big dick and an arsenal of bombs, sort of like our own little Mini-Me. I have no doubt Iran would love to make bombs and participate in a similar sort of dick waving.

Okay, I really hope that Iran wouldn't get into the Dick waving business, and I would love to have Israel's nuclear stockpile revealed. If it was the UN/USA could either demand that Israel disassemble/destroy their nukes or they should stop enjoying any US aid.

In the greater scheming of international politics I doubt it makes any difference if Iran has a bomb or not. A weapon you can't use in a rational way is pretty damned worthless. It's a decoration, sort of like the blue stuff male bowerbirds collect to decorate their nests. I suspect if somebody gave Iran a box of bombs, little would change.

I disagree. It would make a very great deal if Iran had the bomb. I would like to see a nuclear-free Middle east. If Iran has them then the Saudis will be next...then maybe Egypt. That would make for a really crappy war if they started firing their shit all over the place. For all of the bluster of the US and Soviets during the cold war there were enough "cool heads" to actually keep from using it. I am not so confident that I could say the same for the radically-charged Mid East.

Humans are pretty damned irrational whatever their ideologies are. There's no reason to believe Iran with a bomb is any more or less rational than anyone else, or any more or less dangerous.

See my last post above. I believe that a religious/authoritative theocracy, whether that is in the Mid East or in the Mid West heartland of America should be kept as far away from a nuclear device as possible. If I had my way they would all be flushed...right along with every piece of military hardware on the planet.


It would be great if the Human race could learn from its mistakes, but it like to keep on repeating them by starting the bloodbath over and over again. I believe that Iran will be no different in that regard.

[MUAD_DIB]

14. 1) Eventually the theocracy called Iran will have that ability.

2) The USA and *Israel are not police states. Iran is...or have you missed that historical fact for effect?

3) The USA has used nuclear weapons on cities twice, and historically the other option would have been to send 9 divisions of American troops to a most certain death. War sucks doesn't it? The fire bombing of Dresden sucked as well. So did the rape of Nan King.

Was your point that the USA is going to use a nuke on Iran? Do you have some proof of that? If you do I'd love to see it. Otherwise your projection is just that.

4) Wrong. Bush lied and the NeoCons pushed this country into war with Iraq. That does not excuse the American people from being sheep and cheering. It also does not excuse the Iranian leadership from being assholes in their own right. Please don't make them out to be heroes.

I'm pretty sure that regardless of a US invasion of Iraq that Iran would still be pursuing its own nuclear program.

It's great that you wish hypothetically to blame what Iran is right now on America, but they do have to take some responsibility for their own actions. They're not automatons so they have some responsibility in life for what they do. Iran presently has an authoritative government. That government will, with or without the blessing or condemnation of the UN or USA, pursue its own nuclear program.

How the rest of the world reacts to that is really the question.

So to recap again...

What Iran is happens to be a non-democratically elected theocratic police state. It is not a fair comparison to the US at the present time.

I really don't want to see an Nuclear-armed Iran so I would hope that sanctions and diplomacy will work first.


*Yes, the Israeli government are full of right wing assholes, but the US will not give them the green light to attack Iran.

[Statistical]

23. Iran has no nuclear weapons but to say they don't have technology to enrich is stupid.

Centrifuges are 1960 era technology. There aren't THAT complex to build and Iran now has thousands.

So Iran has enriched uranium and the technology to enrich more.

Exactly when they will have enough uranium of high enough enrichment to produce a bomb is unknown but only the first element of your claim is accurate.

Had you said "Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons" you would have been correct.

[Arkana]

18. Casting Iran as the "victims" really isn't working for me.

In case you forgot, we elected the guy who DOESN'T want to invade Iran, kill its leaders, and convert everyone to Christianity.

Also Iran is run by insane people who have repeatedly threatened to blow Israel off the map.

A nuke-less Iran is the only way the Middle East stays in any kind of nominal state.