Iran Needs Nuclear Weapons

Would a Nuclear Iran

  • be a foil to Pakistani ambitions?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • re-establish the Persian Empire or at least a Greater Iran?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • be feared by Shia Arabs?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • would cause Turkey to seek nukes?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • be welcomed by the big happy family that is the Muslim Ummah?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • use them against a Muslim Target?

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
Iran Needs Nuclear Weapons

Paris, France - Two years ago I did not want Iran to produce nuclear energy for electricity, let alone for its military. Today I've changed my mind. Iran needs nuclear weapons to defend itself.

Back in 2004, I had environmental and political worries about nuclear energy. Low safety standards in Iran, evidenced for example in the extremely high incidences of road accidents, would make anyone nervous about the possibility of another Chernobyl occurring in Iran. Politically, I argued that possessing nuclear weapons would embolden the new government of Iran, which was already exhibiting an unimpressive record on democracy and human rights.

But the events of the past two years -- most notably with what's happening in Iraq, along with last year's presidential election and other unfortunate events in the region -- has left no doubt in my mind, and in the minds of lots of secular Iranians, that the U.S. is behaving more and more like a reckless imperial force in search of new sources of energy and new markets to expand to economically. Therefore, even if Iran becomes the most peaceful, secular and progressive, yet still independent state on the planet, the U.S. would be unable to tolerate it. The U.S. would seek new excuses to topple Iran's government and install their favorite instead.

For this reason, I believe Iran needs to produce nuclear weapons as a defensive mechanism, to deter the U.S. today and the ever-expanding and equally energy-hungry China tomorrow.

Moreover, a nuclear Pakistan has always been a threat to Iran and a source of instability. Radical Wahabi and anti-Shia groups such as Sepah-e Sahabeh have murdered Iranian citizens or diplomats in the past twenty years.


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/post...n/2006/08/nuclear_iran_needed_for_defens.html
 
#3
But making nuclear weapons even for totally defensive purposes is not easy now. Iran could only get away with it by stopping enrichment now, voluntarily normalizing relations with Israel and the U.S., and withdrawing from the NPT. Then it could start making the weapons -- secretly or maybe even publicly. It's only then that the world would tolerate a nuclear Iran.
Why would or should the world tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran under *any*circumstances.

I haven't voted in the poll; it doesn't include the option, "Would use them to complete the Endlossung."
 
#4
You've missed some key stuff off that Poll.

Never mind the Turks, the more pressing issue would surely be the Israelis....the question obviously not being would they seek to acquire them, more like would they seek to use them....
 
#5
Considering that Ahmedinejad probably spends his spare private time lounging around in his replica Brownshirt uniform, playing with his Luger and listening to good old Partei music and recordings of propaganda broadcasts, before turning out his bedside lamp (complete with human skin lampshade) and drifting off to sleep wearing his SS pattern Underroos, whilst listening to a lullaby version of Der Horst Wessel Liede.

Such a good little Aryan.
 
#6
Yank_Lurker said:
Considering that Ahmedinejad probably spends his spare private time lounging around in his replica Brownshirt uniform, playing with his Luger and listening to good old Partei music and recordings of propaganda broadcasts, before turning out his bedside lamp (complete with human skin lampshade) and drifting off to sleep wearing his SS pattern Underroos, whilst listening to a lullaby version of Der Horst Wessel Liede.

Such a good little Aryan.
The "You are a Fascist!" "No, YOU are a Fascist!" line of argument does not seem to me to assist in these discussions. There are very few regimes that have not done something totalitarian in their time (yes, incl the USA) - referring to the Nazis at every oppourtunity not only devalues that comparator (if everyone is a Nazi they can't have been that bad, can they?), it is lazy, childish populist name calling of the worst kind - esp when done by so-called 'leaders' of the so-called 'free world' (c/f 'Axis of Evil' etc), designed only to stoke resentment and thus further conflict, in an almost '1984' Orwellian stylie of 'Hate'. Wild West stances and Hollywood soundbites (eg Tony Blair's 'clear & present danger') demonstrate politicians' condescension to their electorate.
 
#7
Hoder has well and truly lost it.
It's the Pakistanis who have more to fear from the Iranian -
Iranian support for Balochi thugs
Closening relations with India: base deal, any one?
Iranian anger over the conversations the Pakistani government has been having with certain officials at the IAEA!
The Iranians have have always held imperialist tendencies over the Persian gulf. I don't think that an Iranian bomb would threaten West but Hoder is being spurious in allegations, to say the least.
 
#8
Would a Iranian / Indian takeover / encroachment be a bad thing for the 'Crusader Alliance'?
 
#9
armchair_jihad said:
Would a Iranian / Indian takeover / encroachment be a bad thing for the 'Crusader Alliance'?
erm... like yah :wink:

Apart from the fact that such a show down would bring on a nuclear melt down and throw countries like Afghnaistan, Iraq and Turkey into turmoil.

Evil countries like Saudi Arabia and China would in more ways the one reap the benefits
 
#10
Oi! Less of the evil China if you please, seeing as its all going to hell in a hand cart why not bring it on?

Saudi is custodian of our oil as well some sort of temple, they are going to keep shtum - prime panzer country Saudi.

China really cannot be ignored or sidelined, they have similar problems to us ie Oil and a muslim minority.

sooner or later a nuke is going to go off - better its a limited pre emtive Indian/Iranian one on a bunch of cricket cheaters than one of ours - after all WHAT whould the Guardian and NYT say?
 
#11
it is lazy, childish populist name calling of the worst kind - esp when done by so-called 'leaders' of the so-called 'free world' (c/f 'Axis of Evil' etc), designed only to stoke resentment and thus further conflict, in an almost '1984' Orwellian stylie of 'Hate'. Wild West stances and Hollywood soundbites (eg Tony Blair's 'clear & present danger') demonstrate politicians' condescension to their electorate
Just a heads up ,"clear and present danger" is not just a Hollywood sound bite. The phase has meaning in American law. In the court case that question is asked about speech.

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

The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right
clear and present danger" became a standard test in cases where a United States law limits free speech; the law is deemed to be constitutional if it can be shown that the language it prohibits is language that poses a "clear and present danger."

In the Movie questions are being asked that revolve around the concept of "clear and present danger" . Do the actions of the drug cartel constitute a "clear and present danger"? Were the actions of the president in the movie justified by a "clear and present danger", and ultimately Who was the real "clear and present danger"? Other than than making a fortune for the studio , providing entertainment for a bunch of brain dead zombies and making untold millions for lefty ,save the world actors, those were the points of the movie.

I assume, Blair is not talking about the movie but about the concept of "clear and present danger" and how it relates to Iraq. I just don't see how Blair is being condescending ,but the use of the phase "clear and present danger" may actually be demonstrating something else
 
#12
armchair_jihad said:
Oi! Less of the evil China if you please, seeing as its all going to hell in a hand cart why not bring it on?
Anything not originating from the western hemisphere is evil, it's the law!! :wink:

Anyway the demise of China is not going to happen, a cyclical view of history shows that China is just regaining the position of economic dominance that enjoyed before the start of western industrialisation,.

Saudi is custodian of our oil as well some sort of temple, they are going to keep shtum - prime panzer country Saudi.
I am sorry but I take a very dim view of the Sauds, they have always been American clients and a couple of billion in oil and defense deals should not make them valuable allies. The way Saudi is going it will soon implode on its self. The regime is just not viable.

sooner or later a nuke is going to go off - better its a limited pre emtive Indian/Iranian one on a bunch of cricket cheaters than one of ours - after all WHAT whould the Guardian and NYT say?
The Pakistani nuclear program is aimed solely at India, also don't think that India is popular in the rest of South West Asia, fears of Indian imperialism is growing. The Pakistani program does not directly threaten the west nor will it threaten Iran. We have more to lose from Iranian imperialism (which could effect the Saudi oil fields and Persian Gulf Oil supply) and Indian Imperialism (GB companies being shut out of key areas).

Also on a moral note, the cricket showed that cheats never prosper -here endeth the lesson.
 

Similar threads

Top