Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
They won't need to use the nuclear weapon, all they need is to have it and keep enemies guessing if they would use it or not, therefore allowing them to do anything they pleased so long as no one felt it was a major risk to intervene.

well it is not bad and is good progress because you were always telling Iran will use nukes to wipe out Israel and the other countries when they make it.And now tell me why you should have the nukes to do anything you pleased but the other countries shouldn't? who gives you this right?

Originally Posted by MontyB

What the hell have you been drinking?

There is no threat or "keep them guessing" policy to nuclear weapons, the USA lost in Vietnam but didn't nuke it, the Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan and did not nuke it either, why?

Because nuclear arsenals are there to protect the status quo and the only threat they pose is one of a last resort weapon, in other words there only value is as a "if I am going down I am taking you with me" weapon.

A thousand nuclear weapons will not give Iran any more power in the middle east than it has already simply because to use them means their own destruction.

You are using wars that don't fit as examples, Monty. Nuclear weapons only serve as defense and yes they will certainly have a "keep them guessing" policy if they decide to get nukes. This occured with U.S and the Soviets:

"Is U.S going to intervene directly if I do this?"
"Are the Soviets going to intervene if I do this?"

Hell, we had to tell the Soviets that we meant no advances on them before we went into Vietnam and they had to tell us they would not intervene if we went to save South Korea during the Korean War.

Yes: Nuclear weapons certainly have a "keep them guessing" policy as no one will risk attacking a nuclear state because they won't know if they would use nukes first.

I think you were the one drinking if you thought I said they were a threat. I already said in other threads that I do not believe Iran is a direct threat to U.S even if they had nukes. I just don't believe they should obtain them simply because of NPT which is how they got their nuclear technology in the first place.


hamidreza:

well it is not bad and is good progress because you were always telling Iran will use nukes to wipe out Israel and the other countries when they make it.And now tell me why you should have the nukes to do anything you pleased but the other countries shouldn't? who gives you this right?

What the heck are you talking about? I am for nuclear disarmament of all countries that signed NPT, which is every single country except Israel, Pakistan, and India (not counting North Korea because they were once signatories). U.S and the Soviets have been steadily declining their nuclear weapons stockpiles from 60,000 (for Soviets) and 30,000 (for U.S) or so to 6,000. Do you think they should unilaterally destroy their nuke stockpiles? That would be a stupid move. Not to mention it would be hard to persuade citizens to disarm while other countries are trying to arm.


"You was always telling Iran will use nukes to wipe out Israel" - This is incorrect. I never stated anything of the sort. I am not sure if Iran would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons IF it obtains one. I do not believe Iran is trying to obtain it either at this moment.

The fact is Iran signed NPT so they are not allowed to gain nuclear weapons. Why do you believe India never signed NPT? "because it allowed nuclear states to keep their nuclear weapons and those that aren't nuclear will not be able to obtain one" according to them. Once Iran signed NPT it was fate that the U.N would complain if they suspected wishes for nuclear weapons, as the technology was shared.

RayManKiller3:
What the heck are you talking about? I am for nuclear disarmament of all countries that signed NPT, which is every single country except Israel, Pakistan, and India (not counting North Korea because they were once signatories). U.S and the Soviets have been steadily declining their nuclear weapons stockpiles from 60,000 (for Soviets) and 30,000 (for U.S) or so to 6,000. Do you think they should unilaterally destroy their nuke stockpiles? That would be a stupid move. Not to mention it would be hard to persuade citizens to disarm while other countries are trying to arm.

You trust to your politician but I never trust to them. They wont destroy their nukes unless they find a new weapon much stronger than nukes.

"You was always telling Iran will use nukes to wipe out Israel" - This is incorrect. I never stated anything of the sort. I am not sure if Iran would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons IF it obtains one. I do not believe Iran is trying to obtain it either at this moment.

The fact is Iran signed NPT so they are not allowed to gain nuclear weapons. Why do you believe India never signed NPT? "because it allowed nuclear states to keep their nuclear weapons and those that aren't nuclear will not be able to obtain one" according to them. Once Iran signed NPT it was fate that the U.N would complain if they suspected wishes for nuclear weapons, as the technology was shared.

Iran signed NPT and was committed to don't make nukes and instead the IAEA was committed to help Iran in nuclear technology, helps Iran to have enrichment technology and gives Iran enriched uranium. In fact they are committed to give the peacefully nuclear technology to everyone who signed the NPT.
Now IAEA is suspected to our nuclear activities and we suspected to their independence and honestly. They say we may use enrichment technology to make nukes in future and we say they haven't helped us in nuclear knowledge, they haven't sold us the 20% enriched uranium, they follow the west policies and their behavior is political not legal. they don't trust us and we don't trust them so isn't it a good decision if we cut our relation with IAEA like a couple who want to divorce? the same as Israel. So there will be no question, there will be no supervision and we also won't request and disturb them for any help!

Another question. why the countries who are member of IAEA,except that west, don't have nuclear technology? all of technology that one of them is enrichment technology. they don't need or there some news is behind the scenes we are not aware?

Originally Posted by MontyB

Oh come on Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Communism, Capitalism, Socialism, Fascism, Tribalism and any other "ism" you care to throw in there has expanded through military force hell I am pretty sure that if Pacifism thought it could expand through war we would be tripping over militant pacifists as well.

The only thing a nuclear device will safeguard is the existing regime in Iran and that will only last as long as they don't use it.

Christianity, Judaism, Communism, Capitalism and Socialism expanded peacefully.
Fascism is nationalistic. Tribalism to small to expand. Only Islam expanded through military means. Their military expansion was halted twice in Europe. The Turks were beaten at the doors of Vienna and the mighty Islamic Cavalry was beaten by the Frankish infantery in France.

A nuclear free world (I think that we all want that) will not happen. The conventional American forces are to strong for Russia or China to become non nuclear powers.

IF we had a nuclear free world, sooner or later someone would build the bom and the race would start again.

The more nuclear powers the higher the chance for a nuclear war.

On January 25, 1995 a scientific Norwegian rocket alsmost started armageddon. The Norwegians informed everyone of the launch but the Russians didn't do anything with it so the Russian military thought is was a US first strike and asked permission to Jeltsin to retaliate. Fortunately Jeltsin was 100% sure that the US wouldn't do such a thing and forbid a retaliation. Ever wondered what would have happened to the world if the Russians would have retaliated?

The Iranian military nuclear program? It's outside the control of the government. The forces working on it are under direct control of the clerics.
Is the IAEA and the 5+1 group in talks with the clerics or the Iranian government?

Last but not least, a Muslim is allowed to lie to a non muslim (taqiyya and kitman).

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Christianity, Judaism, Communism, Capitalism and Socialism expanded peacefully.
Fascism is nationalistic. Tribalism to small to expand. Only Islam expanded through military means. Their military expansion was halted twice in Europe. The Turks were beaten at the doors of Vienna and the mighty Islamic Cavalry was beaten by the Frankish infantery in France.

So you are going to persist with the idea that ignoring the bits of history that do not fit your argument gives you a balanced understanding of the world?

Unlike Spike I know when an argument isn't worth fighting because your opponent clearly can't see the forest for the trees so please for your own benefit go away re-read those history books but this time try opening both eyes then perhaps we can have intelligent discussion on these issues rather than an ideological one.

In short please accept that I probably won't be responding to any more of your posts on this issue not because I agree or you have defeated me but because I think you are so blinded by your own idealogical issues that it is not worth responding.

Originally Posted by VDKMS

Christianity, Judaism, Communism, Capitalism and Socialism expanded peacefully.
Fascism is nationalistic. Tribalism to small to expand. Only Islam expanded through military means. Their military expansion was halted twice in Europe. The Turks were beaten at the doors of Vienna and the mighty Islamic Cavalry was beaten by the Frankish infantery in France.

The different ideologies have not spread peacefully; further, you cannot compare social ideologies with theological ideologies. Capitalism is not an ideology, it is an economic system and so is Communism, which has never occurred.

VDKMS didn't really want to have a comparison among different isms or ideologies. he just was looking for an opportunity to say somethings against Islam or shi.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Unlike Spike I know when an argument isn't worth fighting because your opponent clearly can't see the forest for the trees so please for your own benefit go away re-read those history books but this time try opening both eyes then perhaps we can have intelligent discussion on these issues rather than an ideological one.

Being a relatively determined type of character I have rarely let the blind ignorance and stupidity of others deter me greatly. I suppose that I live in the hope that there is perhaps some slim chance that deep within that lump of solid ivory they call a head, there may be one single neural synapse that will fire sooner or later. However, once people get to denying that they have said something, regardless of the fact that it is there in black and white for all to see, I just put him on ignore. Not even I can argue with blind denial.

He's a total waste of space, an oxygen thief.

And thus the world keeps turning....