Iran should be allowed to build the Bomb




 
--
 
June 21st, 2012  
perseus
 
 

Topic: Iran should be allowed to build the Bomb


In the interests of balancing power in the Middle East. So claims Kenneth Waltz Emeritus Professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley and Adjunct Senior Research Scholar at Columbia University


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Waltz


http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...d-get-the-bomb


It would certainly give the regions bully boy Israel, something to think about the next time they want to throw some weight around. However, perhaps they are really mad enough to go to war with Iran, unlike the US and USSR, or India and Pakistan?
June 21st, 2012  
RayManKiller3
 
Completely disagree as will most of the world, buddy. Iran obtaining a nuke would not balance power, but cause a greater instability. We WILL see a nuclear arms race, Saudi Arabia is not going to sit by and watch Shia Iran hold the most powerful weapon in the region. Iran have nothing to fear from Israel because a successful Israeli strike is impossible without U.S or another Arab country's direct aide. While U.S leaves "all options open" the chances of an air strike is still pretty low.

The only way for Iran to build one without U.S and others knowing is if they expel the IAEA inspectors completely and start locking their doors to transparency. This would DEFINATELY increase the liklihood of an air strike and probably even a fast raid from U.S. Indeed, trying to obtain a nuke would be counter-productive for Iran. It will only increase their chances of being attacked and increase instability.


I don't see how you see Israel as the region's bully boy. To be a bully boy of the region they would need to be able to influence other Arab nations against their will. This does not happen, Israel have no true influence beyond Israel, Palestine, and U.S.

When was the last time Israel threatened to attack Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and others? When is the last time Israel forced either of these countries in the region to do it's bidding?

Also I don't see what Pakistan and India have to do with a war with Iran, besides oil. No, Israel fully recognize their capabilities and know that a successful strike by themselves is very against them. Listen to too much rhetoric and you will believe the world was going into WW3.
June 21st, 2012  
42RM
 
Being the only nuclear power in the Middle East is a great card for Israel to have in its hand. The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it`s Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don`t do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn´t getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately." … And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.
--
June 21st, 2012  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
So Kenneth Waltz is stirring the pot again. He has some good points, though. He is using the old Cold War rhetoric; his perception of balance and stability is based on the neutralization the nuclear weapons have. There is a balance even in an arms race; academically it’s called a security dilemma. There is stability in the deterrence. I agree with if the world (The West) is forcing Iran into a corner and Iran feels threaten, they will acquire the nuclear weapon to avoid any attacks.
June 21st, 2012  
VDKMS
 
Iran will not use the "bomb" to attack another country. Iran will use the "bomb" as an umbrella for the terrorist activities of its Qud forces abroad.
It's the same thing that Pakistan did. After the terrorist activities in India were traced to a terrorist group supported by the ISIS India wanted to invade Pakistan to destroy that group. Pakistan threatened with a nuclear retaliation and the Indians backed off.
So Iran's Qud forces can launch a terrorist attack against Saudi Arabia's rulers and when the Saudis want to retaliate Iran threatens to use its "bomb".
That's why Iran is not allowed to get the "bomb".

Israel is only a bully when they try to or do hit him. From day one Israel's neighbours tried to destroy it and up until today there are some who are still trying and they are surprised that they end up with a black eye.
June 21st, 2012  
RayManKiller3
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42RM
Being the only nuclear power in the Middle East is a great card for Israel to have in its hand. The biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it, it`s Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it. Because the second that they have one and they don`t do anything bad, all of the naysayers are going to come back and say, "See, we told you Iran is a responsible power. We told you Iran wasn´t getting nuclear weapons in order to use them immediately." … And they will eventually define Iran with nuclear weapons as not a problem.

What are you talking about? Most sane people already realize Iran would not use the nuke if it obtained one, that is not the concern the west has about it. U.S politicians even know this despite their stupid rhetoric. Are you forgetting if U.S feels like Iran will attempt to get it, they will attack them? The only thing holding U.S back is the fact that we are not sure if they are trying to obtain it. It will be 100% obvious if they did try to obtain it in the near future even if they throw out all IAEA inspectors.



Quote:
So Kenneth Waltz is stirring the pot again. He has some good points, though. He is using the old Cold War rhetoric; his perception of balance and stability is based on the neutralization the nuclear weapons have. There is a balance even in an arms race; academically it’s called a security dilemma. There is stability in the deterrence. I agree with if the world (The West) is forcing Iran into a corner and Iran feels threaten, they will acquire the nuclear weapon to avoid any attacks.



U.S won't make a slip like another North Korea, not in the Middle-East region. U.S surely will attack if it felt Iran was going to. Iran wouldn't be able to get one.

Quote:
Iran will not use the "bomb" to attack another country. Iran will use the "bomb" as an umbrella for the terrorist activities of its Qud forces abroad.
It's the same thing that Pakistan did. After the terrorist activities in India were traced to a terrorist group supported by the ISIS India wanted to invade Pakistan to destroy that group. Pakistan threatened with a nuclear retaliation and the Indians backed off.
So Iran's Qud forces can launch a terrorist attack against Saudi Arabia's rulers and when the Saudis want to retaliate Iran threatens to use its "bomb".
That's why Iran is not allowed to get the "bomb".
Don't forget Russia and U.S did this as well.
June 22nd, 2012  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by perseus
In the interests of balancing power in the Middle East. So claims Kenneth Waltz Emeritus Professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley and Adjunct Senior Research Scholar at Columbia University


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Waltz


http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...d-get-the-bomb


It would certainly give the regions bully boy Israel, something to think about the next time they want to throw some weight around. However, perhaps they are really mad enough to go to war with Iran, unlike the US and USSR, or India and Pakistan?
The problem with this is that it is still only an assumption that they want to build a bomb, now personally I don't really care whether they do or the don't want one if we are not going to bother about India, Pakistan, North Korea or Israel joining the nuclear club then we should not worry about Iran and I agree it would quieten US and Israeli aspirations in the region down a bit which wouldn't be a bad thing.
June 22nd, 2012  
42RM
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
What are you talking about? Most sane people already realize Iran would not use the nuke if it obtained one, that is not the concern the west has about it. U.S politicians even know this despite their stupid rhetoric. Are you forgetting if U.S feels like Iran will attempt to get it, they will attack them? The only thing holding U.S back is the fact that we are not sure if they are trying to obtain it. It will be 100% obvious if they did try to obtain it in the near future even if they throw out all IAEA inspectors.



[/FONT][/COLOR]


U.S won't make a slip like another North Korea, not in the Middle-East region. U.S surely will attack if it felt Iran was going to. Iran wouldn't be able to get one.



Don't forget Russia and U.S did this as well.
The United States will not attack Iran to prevent her from acquiring nuclear weapons. Geo-political realities discourage American military action. A bombing raid would have to be intensive and prolonged, lasting 2 to 3 weeks, and even then, may not work. The lesson of Iraq, the last preventive war launched by the United States, is that Washington should not choose war when there are still other options, and it should not base its decision to attack on best-case analyses of how it hopes the conflict will turn out. Iran is no Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan or Iraq. In all of these examples, the U.S. military defeated an adversary incapable of competing with superior American land, naval, and air forces. The Iranian military is far more competent and capable, and after watching the war in Iraq for a decade has a good understanding of U.S. tactics and strategy.

Add to all of this America’s economic difficulties and the war-weariness of the American people, and any American government will prefer economic sanctions against Iran to the uncertainties of a military strike. And what is true for the Obama administration will be true for a Republican administration. For the United States, determining what a nuclear weapons-free Iran is worth is critical. Had the American people understood the costs of Iraq before the war began, it’s unlikely they would have given their consent. Given the current economic woes of the country, that cannot happen again.

In the unlikely event that we attack, I would probably be among the first to go - would you?
June 22nd, 2012  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
Don't forget Russia and U.S did this as well.
But not with terrorist activity. I think you point to the Cuba crisis. Both Russia and the US didn't want to use nukes, the problem was how to avoid it without either losing face. A US reporter and a Russian spy were paramount in solving this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
The problem with this is that it is still only an assumption that they want to build a bomb, now personally I don't really care whether they do or the don't want one if we are not going to bother about India, Pakistan, North Korea or Israel joining the nuclear club then we should not worry about Iran and I agree it would quieten US and Israeli aspirations in the region down a bit which wouldn't be a bad thing.
The first thing we must do is to prevent new members to the club and then we can (try) to tackle the others. How in the world are you going to decrease nukes when you allow new members in?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 42RM
The United States will not attack Iran to prevent her from acquiring nuclear weapons. Geo-political realities discourage American military action. A bombing raid would have to be intensive and prolonged, lasting 2 to 3 weeks, and even then, may not work. The lesson of Iraq, the last preventive war launched by the United States, is that Washington should not choose war when there are still other options, and it should not base its decision to attack on best-case analyses of how it hopes the conflict will turn out. Iran is no Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Serbia, Afghanistan or Iraq. In all of these examples, the U.S. military defeated an adversary incapable of competing with superior American land, naval, and air forces. The Iranian military is far more competent and capable, and after watching the war in Iraq for a decade has a good understanding of U.S. tactics and strategy.

Add to all of this America’s economic difficulties and the war-weariness of the American people, and any American government will prefer economic sanctions against Iran to the uncertainties of a military strike. And what is true for the Obama administration will be true for a Republican administration. For the United States, determining what a nuclear weapons-free Iran is worth is critical. Had the American people understood the costs of Iraq before the war began, it’s unlikely they would have given their consent. Given the current economic woes of the country, that cannot happen again.

In the unlikely event that we attack, I would probably be among the first to go - would you?
No one is going to attack Iran unless they are 110% sure they are building the bomb. It's all in the hands of the Iranians and the intelligence agencies (who can make mistakes as in Iraq). When Iran is building the bomb Israel will surely attack, alone if necessary. A western attack on Iran's nuclear capabilities will involve few boots on the ground. They will destrpoy their navy, air defenses and nuclear sites. No need to take on the Iranian army.
BTW, the Iraqi forced also looked strong on paper.
June 22nd, 2012  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Neither the US nor the rest of the world can prevent Iran to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran really wants to have them. Several countries can develop nuclear weapons if they want, but they have decided to not do that. No one forced them, they did that of their own free will, or it benefited them to not develop nuclear weapons. An Iran with nuclear weapons will neutralize Israel's and might trigger an arms race in the region, which might balance and stabilize the region. The major problem if we have Iran and Israel with nuclear weapons is, they don't communicate directly to each other so misunderstandings can have consequences. During the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union were communicating. What could happen during the Cuban missile crisis if they were not communicating?

 


Similar Topics
213 Things Skippy is No Longer Allowed to do in the US Army
De-Arabization of Iran
What If Iran Gets the Bomb? Good Analysis
Rice warns Iran of UN sanctions
Iran's Military