Is Iran a Threat? - Page 4




 
--
Is Iran a Threat?
 
April 14th, 2012  
Der Alte
 
Is Iran a Threat?
Quote:
Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk
If Iran get nukes, it will change the balance in the area. It will increase the risk for an arms race. If more nations get these weapons, the risk for somebody to use them increase, perhaps it will also decrease the risk for a major armed conflict in the area. Nuclear weapons are not military weapons, they are political weapons.
If Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, there's no reason to think a regional nuclear-arms race would follow. Washington and its allies have avoided this outcome in the past, and nothing suggests this time would be different.
April 14th, 2012  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
This is what many of us is trying to get through the skulls of those who believe Iran should or have a right to obtain a nuclear bomb. If one country gets a nuke, then it is likely their rivals to get nukes and so on.

A nuclear arms race in the M.E is something the west fears and with great reason, it is the spot where western nations have their economy fixed on. If only we can reduce our usage of oil enough to where we won't have to worry so much.
There is an international treaty to not spread N-weapons to other countries. The concerns in the West for N-weapons in Iran is not the fear to use them as Der Alte said, they will commit suicide if they did. The long term effect in the area is more likely the major concern, the arms race, the effect on the economy, both in the area and internationally as well
April 14th, 2012  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Alte
If Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, there's no reason to think a regional nuclear-arms race would follow. Washington and its allies have avoided this outcome in the past, and nothing suggests this time would be different.

It might be different for the Gulf States and other countries to get N-weapons if Iran has them. I only speculate, only the future will tell what happens if they get such weapons
--
Is Iran a Threat?
April 14th, 2012  
Der Alte
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RayManKiller3
This is what many of us is trying to get through the skulls of those who believe Iran should or have a right to obtain a nuclear bomb. If one country gets a nuke, then it is likely their rivals to get nukes and so on.

A nuclear arms race in the M.E is something the west fears and with great reason, it is the spot where western nations have their economy fixed on. If only we can reduce our usage of oil enough to where we won't have to worry so much.
There is awide-ranging consensus in the West that an Iranian bomb would precipitate a regional nuclear-arms race, if not a global one. Senators Lindsay Graham, Robert Casey and Joseph Lieberman said as much in the pages of the Wall Street Journal in March. Similarly, British foreign secretary William Hagueworries that if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, "the most serious round of nuclear proliferation" to date would commence. And recently in the New York Times, Ari Shavit of Haaretz stated matter-of-factly that "an Iranian bomb will bring about universal nuclear proliferation."

Fortunately for mankind's sake, there is no evidence to support these apocalyptic prophecies. Although some precautionary actions might be prudent, neither history nor contemporary circumstances indicate that an Iranian atomic weapon would be a nuclear catalyst.

To begin with, fears of an impending nuclear tipping point have been a regular feature of the nuclear age. The CIA is a case in point. Where as in 1957 the agency predicted ten countries could go nuclear within a decade, by 1975 it concluded that "logically" nuclear proliferation would only subside when "all political actors, state and non-state, are equipped with nuclear armaments." A quarter century and one nuclear power later (both South Africa and Pakistan acquired a nuclear-weapons capability during this time, but South Africa dismantled all its nuclear weapons by 1991), CIA director George Tenet announced in 2003 that we had entered "a new world of proliferation" and warned "the 'domino theory' of the twenty-first century may well be nuclear."

The 1960s were equally remarkable. As a presidential candidate in 1960, for example, John F. Kennedy foresaw "ten, fifteen, or twenty nations" acquiring a nuclear capability by the 1964 election. The following year, the Kennedy administration was so certain a Chinese nuclear test would trigger a global wave of nuclear proliferation that it considered simply giving Beijing's neighbors "defensive nuclear weapons." Although not a single additional nuclear power emerged by 1963, President Kennedy remained "haunted by the feeling" that there would be fifteen or twenty of them by 1975 and possibly twenty-five by the end of that decade.

And yet nearly half a century after the Cuban missile crisis there are only nine nuclear-weapon states, five more than when Kennedy was elected and two of which already had advanced nuclear weapon programs during his presidency. During the same time interval, four states have voluntarily given up their nuclear arsenals and an estimated forty nations have not built them despite possessing the technical capability to do so.
April 14th, 2012  
Der Alte
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk
It might be different for the Gulf States and other countries to get N-weapons if Iran has them. I only speculate, only the future will tell what happens if they get such weapons
Once again, there's not much evidence to support these assertions. Although a few countries have built nuclear weapons because a rival acquired them, these are the exceptions to the general rule. Of the quantitative studies done on reactive proliferation, none have found a nuclear-armed rival makes a state more likely to even initiate a nuclear-weapons program, much less succeed.

Egypt is far less capable of building a bomb than Turkey. Indeed, it already had a dysfunctional nuclear program during the 1960s that was abandoned despite Israel, its archenemy at the time, acquiring a nuclear capability.

Given its long-standing rivalry with Tehran, Saudi Arabia is certainly the most alarmed by the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. Moreover, Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, former head of intelligence and ambassador to the United States and the United Kingdom,has repeatedly warned that if Iran is allowed to get nuclear weapons, the kingdom may well do the same. Of course, this might be what a nation would say if it wanted Washington to "cut off the head of the snake" in Tehran.
April 14th, 2012  
Yossarian
 
 
What the Western Media did, and still does not state in the last decade of coverage about the rapid tensions both real, and imagined by American journalists.
Is the recuring failure to look at the situation in a more logical sense.




The fact is there is a lot of overlooked logic in looking at this simple map.

Iran in some rights have plenty of reason to be worried , especially during the last decade, and I if I was a Iranian military leader, regardless of my opinions of the ruling regeime

I would be militarizing the populace heavily towards armed defense as well.

Why?

Look at Iraq, and look at Afghanistan, both had heavy Coalition prescenses in the last decade, on two of Iran's major borders.

Also, the world's only naval superpower was, and is prowling the waters around Iran's ports an major source of economic stimulation.

If I were a military leader in Iran, or a policy maker, I would be worried to.
It's this little mentioned fact that comes through when the Western media demonizes Iran. Let alone show a skyline picture of modern Tehran.

To put this in better perspective, imagine what Americans would feel like if a Massive Russian military presense exsisted in Canada. And say a massive Chinese force was deployed in Mexico, tell me some brows would not be sweating right now?

Given Iran's situation, and although as a individual I am strongly opposed to it, but if Iran has any real tangible hope at victory against any determined American incurision, short of drawing in a regional ally (a heavily equipped miltary power that can challenge U.S. troops) , which does not seem to be a diplomatic solution any time soon.

Then nuclear weapons may be the only vialbe option to use against any invading U.S. or Israeli military forces.

THIS is why the situation is so crictal at this junction if events keep going at this rate.

And the way the U.S. and Western powers are "pressuring" Iran is NOT helping in any way, all it seems to be doing is having the OPPISITE effect and pushing Iran ever closer to a nuclear arsenal, spurring either conflict or an arms race in the Region.
April 14th, 2012  
Der Alte
 
USA has a perfectly legitimate reason to not let Iran get nukes; Iran is a potential enemy. You want to keep your enemies as weak as possible. I see this not from the "moral" standpoint, but more from a realistic standpoint. The USA is acting out of its self-interest, just like every other country has since the beginning of civilization. Nuclear weapons is a "get out of US invasion free" card.
April 14th, 2012  
Yossarian
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Alte
USA has a perfectly legitimate reason to not let Iran get nukes; Iran is a potential enemy. You want to keep your enemies as weak as possible. I see this not from the "moral" standpoint, but more from a realistic standpoint. The USA is acting out of its self-interest, just like every other country has since the beginning of civilization. Nuclear weapons is a "get out of US invasion free" card.

But the way it's being handled is somewhat askew in my opinion, and please reagard this as such.

But there was a time when all American's were living in the crosshairs. At any moment a Soviet attack could have wiped out our society.

Similar to the situation the British were facing in 1941.

But now Iranians in a sense face this every day, I would be worried walking down the street, looking to every horizon knowing a potential enemy is there.

I do know that some people would compare this situation to Israel, and say that Iranian pursuit of nuclear arms is invalid. But Israel, in this same siutation, DID start and maintains a nuclear program. And have never taken part in any nuclear arms reduction treaty.

What I am getting at, is as long at the U.S. is barking at the door, then the more and more sense and urgency may be poured into coming up with a nuclear program.

And the amount of resentment, and bitter hatred towards America has increased over time from the sanctions and utter economic chaos implied on Iran over the years.

I don't like Iran with nukes, I don't want Iran with nukes, but I can say I would understand why they would pursue them.

Also as this situation goes on, I believe that failing U.S. economic practices and replacment as the world's leading manufacturer of goods by Asia, will also influence American police actions in the future regarding Iran.

If another economic dowturn slams U.S. economies then riding out stagnation in the 21st century could sway U.S. policy makers to ride out American interests on the only thing we would have left, a powerful military to man handle our way towards our global interests.

Which if that continues would run that idea out of steam as our military becomes degraded from ailing funding and constant redeployment around the world.

This could start in Iran
April 15th, 2012  
Genevieve84
 
I think much as the Nazi's needed the Jews to focus the ills of a country on the USA needs Iran to take peoples minds off their ills and make them feel relevant.
April 15th, 2012  
Der Alte
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian
But the way it's being handled is somewhat askew in my opinion, and please reagard this as such.

But there was a time when all American's were living in the crosshairs. At any moment a Soviet attack could have wiped out our society.

Similar to the situation British in 1941.

But now Iranians in a sense face this every day, I would be worried walking down the street, looking to every horizon knowing a potential enemy is there.

I do know that some people would compare this situation to Israel, and say that Iranian pursuit of nuclear arms is invalid. But Israel, in this same siutation, DID start and maintains a nuclear program. And have never taken part in any nuclear arms reduction treaty.

What I am getting at, is as long at the U.S. is barking at the door, then the more and more sense and urgency may be poured into coming up with a nuclear program.

And the amount of resentment, and bitter hatred towards America has increased over time from the sanctions and utter economic chaos implied on Iran over the years.

I don't like Iran with nukes, I don't want Iran with nukes, but I can say I would understand why they would pursue them.

Also as this situation goes on, I believe that failing U.S. economic practices and replacment as the world's leading manufacturer of goods by Asia, will also influence American police actions in the future regarding Iran.

If another economic dowturn slams U.S. economies then riding out stagnation in the 21st century could sway U.S. policy makers to ride out American interests on the only thing we would have left, a powerful military to man handle our way towards our global interests.

Which if that continues would run that idea out of steam as our military becomes degraded from ailing funding and constant redeployment around the world.

This could start in Iran
If we assume every enemy is crazy, then we're the crazy ones. Saying that Iran's beef with us is solely based off insanity prevents us from ever solving the real problems at the heart of the issue.

Good post
Nice to see there is a young man who has such a clarity, then there is still hope for the world.
 


Similar Topics
Israel test-fires missile as Iran threat looms
De-Arabization of Iran
What If Iran Gets the Bomb? Good Analysis
Rice warns Iran of UN sanctions
Iran's Military