Printable View
Does anyone know the answer to this question. I mean is Iran a serious threat to the US if we leave them alone? I was listening to some news program and is sounded like some Senator wants to go to war with Iran. Apparently there are others who think we should attack now even though we are essentially loosing two wars. Is this the US's problem or Israel's?
Iran could be a threat to the world, not the US only. I can't help but wonder why would you believe what you hear on TV/Radio, its not like the media is neutral or anything.
Why would Iran be a threat to the world? There has to be a solid reason for starting a war.
Not every news source is automatically biased; but if you do encounter what you believe to be a slanted spin on a news item, there are countless alternative sources to use in order to develop your own informed opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by mainaman
Like nuclear weapons?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
I would trust such weapons in the hands of Canadians or Belgians, but not in the hands of the leader of Iran.
Do they have nuclear weapons? Is an unproven suspicion of possible weapons enough to go to war over?Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
:gaah: What am I saying? The US and UK have set a precedent with exactly this situation haven't we? Forget proof of WMD, let's bomb the crap out of them just in case.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana (1905).
Do you remember the hostage situation in Iran when Jimmy Carter was in office?Quote:
Originally Posted by majurey
I certainly do. But perhaps my memory is failing me, because I don't recall a war with America as an immediate and direct result, nor do I recall it being about the threat of WMD, which is what your response ("Like nuclear weapons?") was referring to.
But I was only 9 years old at the time, so perhaps I can't rely on what I know. Just going to read up on whether the Iran hostage crisis involved WMD and led to war...
(I do remember the price of fish at that time, but that has nothing to do with WMD either.)
I think Iran will be threatening enough to make war seem advisable but not justifiable. But even if Irad does have nukes it is only a threat to America and Israel. I think the rest of the world would stand back and watch Israel be blown away and they would also expect America to be able to take care of themselves. Iran will never be perceived as a threat to the world and so the world would never justify war with Iran.
However, sadly, I do not say there will not be a war with Iran.
Do you remember the reason it happened and what lead to that situation arising?Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
The Israelis will/should get there before we do. You know they already have the plans and the will to bomb the living heck out of Iran.
I think everyone should have nukes. What wonderful devices they would be for a trip to market when a martyr sought to barter for a place in heaven.
:)
The president of Iran has said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map. That is the number one reason so many people are nervous. The last time a leader of a country said he wanted to take over the world, he almost did. The second reason is that this will start a nuclear arms race in the Arab world. There are already countries that have said that if Iran gets one they must have one. What a powder keg! A lot of people are nervous and concerned and I think rightfully so. The UN is useless and impotent, so what to do? If Israel is nuked we will be in it, with nukes! Not good.
Take Care,
Richard
We are trading partners with a communist country that uses slave labor and has nuclear weapons. We are negotiating with a country that has nuclear weapons and also has heavy artillery pointed at our troops on the 38th parallel with a nut for a leader and we're worried about Iran ?
Iran has a despicable leader but it is a country that hasn't attacked a neighbor in hundreds of years. There is only one country I know of that has nuclear weapons that attacked another sovereign nation without provocation in recent history. :boohoo:
One funny bit of information about said president:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad revealed to have Jewish past - Telegraph
Could it be so that Israel has too strong influence on U.S. politics? I think that all efforts should be made to make both Israelians and Palestinians to respect each other. That would leave Iranians no reason to give those macho statements. Besides most of those comments are for internal politics only (just like in every country).
I don't see Iran as a threat to world peace or to U.S. Starting a war against Iran would start a war against the whole Arab/Islamic world.
Yes, the US, being proxies for some European political (read oil) interests, installed the Shah to control the supply of oil. The Kurds were initially developed as an insurgent force to help induce pressure on the reluctant secular government of Iran and then were hung out to dry after they had met the limit of usefulness at the time. This left festering resentments which eventually erupted into the Islamic revolution and the present theocracy and the current political/territorial tensions.Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelP
Knowing history and being unwilling to repeat it, does not automatically confer common sense or fortitude upon the decision makers.
So then, he's not all that much different than any number of Spanish Inquisitors....Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelP
If Iran did launch at Israel, then Israel would counter and/or intercept the missiles. They have the same ICBM and defense tech that we have. What you need to worry about from Iran is a dirty bomb. A suicide bomber in an Israeli market place with a dirty bomb would do more damage than one well placed missile.
It is impossible to make a world safe from Nukes when everyone has access to them. The only way to make the world safe is to STOP using the energy and tech. It is environmentally destructive and genocidaly hazardous to the human race.
Would Iran do this, probably not. They are acting like a three year old that wants attention and is breaking its parents things to get attention. Iran wants to be heard. It wants something that it is not getting. Until we seriously find out what that something is they will continue to act out. MA is a crazy guy, but remember he is just a figure head. The Ayatollah is the one to watch out for.
I like the responses. I was just curious because it seems that that is another powder keg in the middle east. I hate to see US soldiers die no matter the reason, but especially with a country who has not done anything directly to us.
Absolutely... it seems to be a rule of life ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Blue
Big homophobic stance and pushing for laws outlawing homosexuality, turns out to be a closet homosexual.
Big "family is sacred" stance and trying to outlaw divorce, turns out to have at least one extra-marital affair.
Big "Israel is evil and should be wiped off the map" stance and denying the holocaust, turns out to be of Jewish origins.
Actually, I would argue that even if every reactor in the world was shut down tomorrow, it would not change the proliferation problem. IMO, proliferation is not driven by a need for energy, but by a need for power - military and political. A commercial power plant is generally not considered to be the easiest source of material, and in fact the US had no reactors in operation during the Manhattan project. Britain did not have any reactors to speak of immediately after WWII either, yet they still were able to process material. By "reactors," I mean those actually intended to produce power; both nations had special purpose "reactors" designed for the sinister purpose of simply making bombs.Quote:
Originally Posted by singlewedge
The terrifying truth is that this knowledge is out there, and there's no way to erase it. The ONLY way to make the world safe would be to travel back in time and change the course of history so that the bomb was never made. Then again, there would be no chemotherapy, no MRI, no PET scan, etc...
The comforting truth is that in most cases, when a nation pursues manufacturing nuclear weapons, those involved generally don't plan on using them preemptively. Even North Korea wouldn't do something that stupid, the backlash would be as severe as it was catastrophic (as in, there might not be any North Korea left). In Iran's case, I think it's a bit less clear whether there would be plans to use said weapons, which is why the threat is being taken more seriously.
EDIT: Forgot to add that IMO, this is not our deal. I don't think it's our nation's job to deal with this problem. I don't want to see any more dead US soldiers, and I don't think military action would soothe Iran's anger any more than rubbing salt in an open would would make it feel better.
Nuclear is still one of the better options. If you are worried about radioactivity, better stop using coal powered energy plants, which blast large amounts of radioactive dust in the atmosphere nonstop.Quote:
Originally Posted by singlewedge
Very true. Coal releases a ton of radioactivity and no one bats an eye about it. In fact, if I remember correctly, when all is said and done coal kills more people per year than Chernobyl ever did. I really think Chernobyl ruined nuclear power too. It should never have happened, and frankly the design wasn't considered safe by the scientists who built it (who, by the way were more than capable of making safer designs, as they did).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
It really irks me when people say they want to change the grid and save the planet, but then they bash nuclear energy. To do what they say, they are going to need a power source with a high capacity factor. Wind and solar do not have high capacity factors, even with ultra high tech energy storage systems that haven't been invented yet. The answer to this problem has always been to install extra wind and solar facilities elsewhere to make up for days when wind and solar are not available locally is not an economically viable one IMO. I have yet to see a total price tag for wind and solar energy that factors in these redundant facilities, but usually buying something twice to get it once is an expensive proposition.
At best, we could end up with a near-zero carbon grid with a mix of all the renewables, and a fairly strong nuclear base. In this capacity, the renewables could completely replace all the peaking turbines and generators scattered across the country, as well as provide a fair amount of "base load" electricity.
Personally, while I think "clean coal" technology is just a bunch of green washing, I think it would be awesome if someone really did figure out an affordable way to trap the C02 emitted, and while they were at it, they capture the uranium that was inherently present in the coal. Then take that uranium and feed reactors.
Oh, and the problem NO ONE is talking about, is electric vehicles. If a significant portion of the vehicles on the road were to go all electric, we would have an energy shortage to end all energy shortages...
end :soapbox:
The Belgians! Really Mark, have you been drinking?;)Quote:
Originally Posted by JMS
I think the earth is a small enough place that if anyone has a nuke it should be a concern to the rest of the world. I think ALL nations should do away with nukes and programs to research such weapons. I just don't forsee that happening as there will always be power hungry people in the world.
Agreed, if Israel is provoked, they will, I believe kill ruthlessly...it'll be a freakin' blood bath!Quote:
Originally Posted by mhailey
Sure, lots of Israelis will die, but they won't stop til they're dead.
I fully agree. People are scared of nuclear power, when they shouldn't be. It's safe, clean, cheap, and lasts a heck of a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Negligence in the past has ruined it in many people's eyes.