I were wondering. America is doing almost everything in its power to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Do you really think that they would actually use it if they had it. They main thing about nuclear weapons is only the threat of force since they other route would mean mutually assured destruction (MAD). Make no mistake, I don't want them to have it it, since I don't trust them with that religion that is violently intolerant of other cultures and religions. But since it is no simple matter to just stop them developing nuclear power for seemingly civilian uses, I say let them have it with this one condition, if they take one step in the directon of nuclear weapons, the west will hit and hit hard.
Dont worry yourself, the powerful men of the world plot together. all you see on the news is scripted. when the time comes for us to get nuked it will happen, the most you can do is live your life and if your lucky you would have lived your life before it happens.
Well as of now, I don't think they will. Since MAD will basically come into action and no one will be happy. I'm pretty sure everyone knows that if one country tries it, MAD is imminent. However, since the U.S which as of now, is the only country that can afford this, is building their new defense system which should be able to defend against nuclear weapons. That could cause potential threats to the rest of the world when the U.S finishes this project.
wtf is this shit? i don't trust AMERICA to have nuclear weapons. hell no fucking country should have nukes. if anything, nukes should be used to harness energy. that's it. and faggot OP blaims the Muslim religion. it's not the fucking religion. it's the fucking extremists for that religion who take shit too seriously. and iranian government is not made by extremists. fucking ignorants.
Though its stated in the Quran that if you become a so called ''marty'' you'll have 200 virgins in heaven. Now how to become a marty? By killing your enemies! Who's your enemies?! Everything non muslim related!
MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction (assumes that two parties can mutually destroy one another) would not figure into the case because Iran would not be able to destroy the US even if they did gain nuclear weapons. They neither have the launch platforms or systems of delivery required to destroy the US with one strike. The US however, can destroy Iran with one strike. If Iran were to launch a nuke and have it explode somewhere, the US could literally wipe them off the face of the earth within the hour. However, what would give the US pause is not that Iran had nukes, but that it would render many of the oil fields in the region unusable. Iran, DPRK, et al, whole philosophy is that possession of a nuclear weapon would gain respect and fear from the outside world. Hardly; rather it makes the new holder of the bomb a much larger and important foe in terms of nuclear targeting priority. Mutually Assured Destruction only matters if a country like Iran or DPRK comes up with a nuclear arsenal similar to that held by the US or Russia (intercontinental missiles, submarines, aircraft, with sophisticated satellite targeting). Otherwise, they're just another idiot with a big gun that will be annotated with a "kill first" listing next to their name, for when the war starts. Boy, it's amazing what you can learn in a bar nowadays. But if you didn't and got that stuff from school you should do go and sue them, as they didn't teach you any shit worth keeping. It's pretty damned lame if someone can point to something that you uttered and say that just about everything you said is wrong. But when someone points out that all of what you stated is off kilter; well, that settles it then. You're really just moving your jaw and no matter how hard you try, you just can't stop the nonsense from spewing forth. >.< To begin with, "Marty" is the name of a 1955 movie starring Ernest Borgnine (about the social trials of lonely middle aged men). The Koran (Variant) guarantees 72 virgins (or raisins if you're into wild interpretive conspiracies), for proper martyrs, ie people who die or are killed during the fulfilling of a religious edict or cause for Islam (simply killing your enemies; eg like the guy who screwed your wife, or who sold you some bad dope, etc., doesn't count as you're not doing it for Islam, you're doing them for yourself). Charging into enemy gunfire as you try to spead the joy of Islam to them would qualify. But don't take all this high minded stuff too seriously. There's only so much that you can learn at Barstool U. If you try to cram too much in in one night you'll get a bit lopsided and fall off. All those wonderful theories would then run back out onto the floor and you'll have to start accumulating nonsense all over again. That's liable to cost another round or two... I'm not trying to be insulting but, if you're going to speak poorly of something then at least be smart enough to collect your proper facts before you start. That way, others would have to at least work at making a fool out of you instead of you doing it to yourself for them. I think this statement is probably the most accurate of any in this thread. I agree, except that they're controlled by extremists; that's the worrisome part. Ralph
Actually, the US is doing everything in its power to stop Iran from getting anything nuclear (including nuclear power plants), which means the US broke the NNPT if they are pursuing the usage of nuclear energy. I suggest you learn Middle East history, and you might just... get a sense why it is what it is, not just because the Koran encourages them to do so. And the US violates the NNPT by preventing Iran the right to use peaceful nuclear energy. You might be right. Israel is one of four nations that are not a party of NNPT. Oh, Iran is not one of those four. They are as destructive as those who the OP is pointing a finger at.
best part about the Koran which guarantees 72 virgins is that they never stated whether the virgins you receive would be male or female haha
...or a dog or cat, or <gasp> a gorilla. Seriously, the implied interpretation based on historical connotations are human females of purity. Whether that meant Asian, African, European; well, that's a whole 'nother guessing game. Most ancient religious texts don't stand up well to applications of contemporary legalistic standards (which try to address all possible variables in its wording). My personal view is that any nation religiously controlled is inherently too politically unstable to be allowed a nuclear device. Israel narrowly avoids this qualification as their government is firmly secular based despite the obviously intense pressures from their religious sectors. Also, imagine if the Vatican had nukes? Heck of a proselytizing tool, eh? That's why religion and politics should never be allowed to mix. Iran is currently under fairly strict religious social and political controls; that is, the state exists at the pleasure of its religious institution. Their Religious Police is akin to the US secret service in terms of unbridled power to go anywhere and do anything to protect the religious purity of the state. An analogy would be something along the lines of the US government being subject to the veto powers of the Catholic church; that is, the government can come up with bills and resolutions, but it would need to be vetted by a supreme religious body before being allowed enactment. Imagine if a cop stopped you on suspicions of not being pious enough? Further, consider that for years, the Persian government has allowed its nation to be roiled in anti-western or anti-American rhetoric. "Death to the USA" chants by government orchestrated crowds in a nation whose religious ethos of "dying for God is great and will guarantee your passage into paradise" and cannot otherwise militarily project, in my opinion, would be little hesitant in terms of pushing that nuclear button. As in: "Why not? We're going to lose unless we do it and all going to heaven anyways, right?" Having a few jealous Gods armed with nuclear tipped weapons is frankly asking for Armageddon; having more than a few almost guarantees it. I know many people are of the, "So what? If the US can have a nuke why can't everyone else? That would only be fair." But that's not how the world works. The more nuclear arms there are in the hands of people with little to lose, the more likelihood that something drastic will happen. The current nuclear powers all have a lot to lose (except for maybe Pakistan, which bear serious watching). Why? Because they're all on top of the world and in control, they want to keep the status quo, hence they have the most to lose in an all out exchange. A nation like Iran, that has been on the political outside looking in, and looking to change the status quo, may just take the attitude of "fuck all of yous then, if I can't get in on this game then I'm going to throw the ball over the fence so that nobody can play." Poof. Game over. For everybody. That's why certain nations have the bomb, and certain nations can never be allowed to have it. It isn't in any way, shape or form; fair. But it's one of the political realities that we have to live with. Ralph
The first nation on earth to ever use Nuclear Weapon justify it to quicken an end to world war II. The dangerous precedent have been set. Its not a question of weather nuclear weapons could be use. But a question of when. Since then, there is an evolution in military doctrine about the use and deployment of nuclear weapons. The system itself will take over any human rationality because it is design to preserve the survivability of a nation. This is such a bloody joke. I agree with dann. No nation on earth should ever need to have nuclear weapons. There is a school of thought in International society that maintains that the balance of power can be maintained with M.A.D. or Mutually Assured Destruction. That is the worse form of mental illness ever that have ever inflicted men. If humans can celebrates its progress in all fields, then why is there a need to hang on to nuclear weapons that might threaten to wipe out the entire planet ? It just does not make sense.
