Turn on thread page Beta

Iran can launch WMD in 30 mins!!! watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Do you believe the 30 mins WMD
    Yes
    9
    17.65%
    No
    32
    62.75%
    Not Sure
    10
    19.61%

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    How long can the U.S.A do it in? I think we should start a bombing campaign against them. The whole World is in danger because of them.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jusfarhan)
    How long can the U.S.A do it in? I think we should start a bombing campaign against them. The whole World is in danger because of them.
    You're free to try. And since we're apparently targetting peace-loving countries, why don't you go and live in Iran, Iraq, Syria, or North Korea?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    You're free to try. And since we're apparently targetting peace-loving countries, why don't you go and live in Iran, Iraq, Syria, or North Korea?
    Excellent.. "Liberate" those who are in danger.. Those who do not want the Americans in their country, those who lose their mothers and fathers because of the liberators.. So thousands are killed, and there are hardly a group of people to live in the country, "freely".

    Oh and, no government either. Hardly.

    They pose a damn real threat.. They might strike any minute now (for no gain whatsoever, just for the fun of it it seems).. With no fear that the Americans will strike them hard and take everything and everyone without a care in the World.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jusfarhan)
    Excellent.. "Liberate" those who are in danger.. Those who do not want the Americans in their country, those who lose their mothers and fathers because of the liberators.. So thousands are killed, and there are hardly a group of people to live in the country, "freely".

    Oh and, no government either. Hardly.

    They pose a damn real threat.. They might strike any minute now (for no gain whatsoever, just for the fun of it it seems).. With no fear that the Americans will strike them hard and take everything and everyone without a care in the World.
    Who's stopping Britain and other countries from spending enough money to get a respectable military and thus be able to make the US reconsider its decisions on such matters?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Even if Iran did launch a nuclear bomb on somewhere like Israel, wouldn't they just end up erdicating their own country because of the close proximity?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by digitalparadox)
    Even if Iran did launch a nuclear bomb on somewhere like Israel, wouldn't they just end up erdicating their own country because of the close proximity?
    Iran is over 400 miles away from Israel...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    Well where did we get the popular 45-minute claim, then?
    You tell me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jusfarhan)
    Excellent.. "Liberate" those who are in danger.. Those who do not want the Americans in their country, those who lose their mothers and fathers because of the liberators.. So thousands are killed, and there are hardly a group of people to live in the country, "freely".

    Oh and, no government either. Hardly.

    They pose a damn real threat.. They might strike any minute now (for no gain whatsoever, just for the fun of it it seems).. With no fear that the Americans will strike them hard and take everything and everyone without a care in the World.
    You're an idiot. And I'll be happy to tell you why.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    The US didn't send a soldier to help Israel in '73 when it was on the verge of destruction; it sure as hell isn't going to risk a nuclear war over it.
    Yeah, because, you know, American policy hasn't changed a bit in the last 30 years?



    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Attacking a nuclear power generally implies the willingness to start a nuclear war. :rolleyes:
    Willingness, yes. Desire, no. There is a difference. And, there is also a difference between a war and a nuclear war.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    You're an idiot. And I'll be happy to tell you why.
    And, when she is done, I'd be happy to find other ways to reinforce that position.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sure, Iran has WMDs. Last time I checked, so did Israel and the USA. What is it about 9/11 that caused the public to suddenly lose its balls and strategists to throw away all their books on deterrence theory?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cain)
    Sure, Iran has WMDs. Last time I checked, so did Israel and the USA. What is it about 9/11 that caused the public to suddenly lose its balls and strategists to throw away all their books on deterrence theory?
    Deterrance theory assumes rationality, and while on average, states are rational, it would be very stupid to assume that they are always rational. Deterrance theory was used only when there was no alternative (both superpowers already had nukes). No senior policymaker actually wanted to rely on deterrance.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    states are rational
    However, we are at this point talking about Iran.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Deterrance theory assumes rationality, and while on average, states are rational, it would be very stupid to assume that they are always rational. Deterrance theory was used only when there was no alternative (both superpowers already had nukes). No senior policymaker actually wanted to rely on deterrance.
    And what actions make you presume Iran is irrational? Because its a theocracy? I would like to see examples of Iran's supposed irrational actions. Because as far as I can see, they have acted in a totally rational manner. Their current leader, for all his blowhard Islamic rhetoric, is a nationalist first and foremost, and so would not appreciate Iran being turned into the worlds largest parking lot.

    Besides, what other choices are there? Iran is not going to give up its programs, unless Israel and the USA make similar concessions, which will never happen. We are hardly going to disarm them, unless we want to make Iraq look like a dress rehearshal for the real fun in the streets of Tehran. Iran has not used its weapons in all the time it has had them. What has changed the situation now? Nothing, except US and EU posturing over nuclear ambitions and the not so silent threat of force. And given Iran is not exactly super popular in the region, the only reasons I can see for their non-use of weapons so far is Israeli retaliation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cain)
    Their current leader, for all his blowhard Is lamic rhetoric, is a nationalist first and foremost, and so would not appreciate Iran being turned into the worlds largest parking lot.
    That has got to be the most self conflicting sentence I've ever read on this board.

    (Original post by Cain)
    Besides, what other choices are there? Iran is not going to give up its programs, unless Israel and the USA make similar concessions, which will never happen. We are hardly going to disarm them
    This is where you, and the rest of Western goverment see things differently. And, boy am I glad I'm not on your side.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cain)
    And what actions make you presume Iran is irrational? Because its a theocracy? I would like to see examples of Iran's supposed irrational actions. Because as far as I can see, they have acted in a totally rational manner. Their current leader, for all his blowhard Islamic rhetoric, is a nationalist first and foremost, and so would not appreciate Iran being turned into the worlds largest parking lot.
    Because every state without exception is capable of irrationality. Rationality is assumed in international relations because it makes analaysis easier, not because people actually believe it (just like rationality is assumed in economics, while no serious economist actually believes that's an accurate portrayal of the world). The most anyone can claim is that, on average, countries are rational.

    Besides, what other choices are there? Iran is not going to give up its programs, unless Israel and the USA make similar concessions, which will never happen. We are hardly going to disarm them, unless we want to make Iraq look like a dress rehearshal for the real fun in the streets of Tehran. Iran has not used its weapons in all the time it has had them. What has changed the situation now? Nothing, except US and EU posturing over nuclear ambitions and the not so silent threat of force. And given Iran is not exactly super popular in the region, the only reasons I can see for their non-use of weapons so far is Israeli retaliation.
    It's popular in Syria and Palestine, and has its supporters in most of the other countries.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bikerx23)
    US...one wink from a stupid texan.

    UK - probably months, what with all the beaurocratic malaise they would have to wade their way through - probably lots of risk assesment forms... :rolleyes:
    lol......
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by esx77)
    Ideally its in everyones interests for nobody to have nukes. However that is not the case. If Iran continue on their road to nukes then what actions do you think should be taken? And what will be the long term consequences of such actions?

    Using force to prevent iran getting hold of nukes may be more disasterous in the longer term than to let them get hold of nukes whilst maintaing dialogue throughout (via russia maybe).
    It is completely outrageous to prevent another country from developing nuclear weapons when you have many in your own country. I think we should stop being hypocrites charging around the world conquering faraway evils when there are plenty to battle right here.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supersonic)
    It is completely outrageous to prevent another country from developing nuclear weapons when you have many in your own country. I think we should stop being hypocrites charging around the world conquering faraway evils when there are plenty to battle right here.
    What utter nonsense. If I have a gun, why should I let others get a gun as well? I know I'll use my gun only in my interest; how am I to know whether others won't use their guns against me?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Self-centred argument, that. Of course, when it's countries and not people we're dealing with, total and unadulterated egocentrism is the norm.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.