DELETED_74993

[Danthus]

Plenty, via terrorism sponsored by Iran.

A charge that can easily be levelled at various western countries.

 

[zegna]

Have you seen the bitches in this part of the world?? No wonder they make 'em where burkas!

Gotta quote this one for truth.. Persian girls are haaawt

 

[Tyrone77]

I actually agree that it isn't our duty to meddle constantly in the internal affairs of another nation, but developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles can hardly be lumped into this category.

shall we bomb eveyone else that does this?

Lets start with an area in England and lets just say it's collateral damage when it kills your family.

Just saying that war is not the answer really (not trying to get too personal!)

 

[George Hincapie]

There's absolutely no justification for a military attack on Iran. None.

So what if they have nuclear weapons? It's completely hypocritical of the nuclear club to dictate who can and cannot join.

We, as a country, should have no part in this.

 

[mollymoo]

I actually agree that it isn't our duty to meddle constantly in the internal affairs of another nation, but developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles can hardly be lumped into this category.

As has been mentioned before the main "meddler" are still the only country to of actually used a nuclear weapon in an act of war so it's purely hypocritical of them to start preventing others from defending themselves.

 

[Fusion]

As has been mentioned before the main "meddler" are still the only country to of actually used a nuclear weapon in an act of war so it's purely hypocritical of them to start preventing others from defending themselves.

Why? Will the world really be a safer place with Iranian nuclear weapons? Perhaps it's not hypocrisy but mere self preservation.

 

[mollymoo]

Why? Will the world really be a safer place with Iranian nuclear weapons? Perhaps it's not hypocrisy but mere self preservation.

Preserving ourselves against what? The Iranians are as likely to use WMD's as America are ...... oh wait.

The point of something as destructive as a nuclear bomb is to create MAD surely. It can only ever be considered a form of defence, in my opinion.

 

[RoboCod]

Preserving ourselves against what? The Iranians are as likely to use WMD's as America are ...... oh wait.

The point of something as destructive as a nuclear bomb is to create MAD surely. It can only ever be considered a form of defence, in my opinion.

That is still a pointless arguement, I'd feel more comfortable if an extreme Islamic Republic did not have a nuclear arsenal really.

 

[George Hincapie]

That is still a pointless arguement, I'd feel more comfortable if an extreme Islamic Republic did not have a nuclear arsenal really.

I'd feel more comfortable if no-one had them at all.

 

[George Hincapie]

I trust you know what MAD stands for? You know it relies on big stockpiles of weapons/enough to completely wipe out the enemy, yes?

And how many modern nuclear weapons do you think it would take to destroy a country? Far fewer than you think I'm sure.

 

[RoboCod]

I'd feel more comfortable if no-one had them at all.

Agreed, but still I'd rather no more nations aquired them, particularly ones such as Iran.

 

[Fusion]

Agreed, but still I'd rather no more nations aquired them, particularly ones such as Iran.

Agreed.

 

[mollymoo]

I trust you know what MAD stands for? You know it relies on big stockpiles of weapons/enough to completely wipe out the enemy, yes?

Yep it means Mutually Assured Destruction meaning that if two countries have a nuclear weapon and a good enough early warning system then they will inflict the same amount of damage on each other making the use of said weapons null, sir do I get a cookie now.

So all the Iranians "appear" to be doing is defending themselves against countries that could destroy them. However I will agree that Iran seem to be rather unstable and yes it would be a small cause for concern if they gained long range nuclear capabilities, a bit like giving a kid a gun.

 

[dirtydog]

 

[George Hincapie]

I suggest you look at the countries that currently have nuclear weapons. Many of them have debatable foreign policy, and questionable Government stability.

Then there's the Jewish white elephant in the room that no-one ever talks about...

 

[DailyGeek]

I'm vehemently anti-nuclear, I think we'd be better off without them full-stop. However I think the main issue I have with states such as Iran seeking them now, is that they haven't been through 40-odd years of Cold War tensions and therefore do not necessarily understand the full breadth and scale of destruction that is necessary for MAD to stay enforced.

The world as a whole should be disarming imo, but I guess that's a seperate topic.

 

[George Hincapie]

It doesn't matter how many you have, if you have no delivery system for them (which'll reach your target) .

You need to think outside the box.

A ship to transfer an Iso container to the English coast. A truck to drive said container into the center of London.

Total cost <£20K.

One small yield warhead would wipe London off the map and cripple our country.

 

[DailyGeek]

You need to think outside the box.

A ship to transfer an Iso container to the English coast. A truck to drive said container into the center of London.

Total cost <£20K.

One small yield warhead would wipe London off the map and cripple our country.

Ironically, that's actually more thinking 'inside a box'

 

[George Hincapie]

Ironically, that's actually more thinking 'inside a box'

Or in fact, the container. Yes, quite right

 

[George Hincapie]

Then we test ground zero, identify the source, and unleash Hell. That's not MAD, is it... that's one attack that'll just bring a world of pain to the culprit's doorstep. Assured destruction... but it wouldn't be mutual.

It isn't supposed to be mutual. It was an example to illustrate that a modern delivery system isn't required.