• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

Why is a Nuclear Iran so bad?

#1
I think it's because they have shown blatant disregard for all international norms of environmental care. The Iranians have a third world oil extraction regime, that floods toxic PCBs into the environment. Look at their record on chemical warfare - they regard the environment as a sort of toybox for their military to experiment with.

FFS, they have been responsible for more deaths in the region from cancer than have died as a result of armed conflict in the last decade (don't believe me?
Cancer is a growing health problem in Iran and according to recent statistics, represents the third most common known cause of death after cardiovascular disease and accidents.
Link here if you need the full details: Iranian deaths because of their casual attitude to industrial safety)

So, given that a first world power like Russia could contaminate Welsh sheep with Chernobyl, we obviously cannot let this bunch of medieval peasants loose with the elemental power that drives our sun. I suspect that American rhetoric reflects the Bush administration's growing environmental awareness.
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#3
Classic post, for the first time I can see someone's point on the problems of a nuclear Iran; just don't think that this has anything to do with Bush's desire for the world (read as the US) to lessen its ecological footprint, he's about to convince the developing world to turn food into fuel for US 4X4s...

I think President Dinnerjacket has competition in provocative humour :wink:
 
#4
Why? Scientific evidence does not lie. these people would poison the ground water that we will all have to live on when the inevitable results of global warming come home to roost...
 
#6
I knew it had to be a wind up.
You won't be saying that when your children's lips blister as they swig poisoned water in a desperate attempt to stave off dehydration and death. These people would march their own children across minefields in order to make a point.
 
#7
chumpycheeks said:
I knew it had to be a wind up.
You won't be saying that when your children's lips blister as they swig poisoned water in a desperate attempt to stave off dehydration and death. These people would march their own children across minefields in order to make a point.
I'd prefer the lip blisters to them melting because of a thermonuclear war between to countries run by foolish leaders and inhabited by the most thick headed cnuts ever known to man.
 
#8
I'd prefer the lip blisters to them melting because of a thermonuclear war between to countries run by foolish leaders and inhabited by the most thick headed cnuts ever known to man.
Their lips wouldn't melt in a thermonuclear war between Iran and Israel - stands to reason - you'd have taught them to 'duck and cover', so at the worst they'd get a bad case of sunburned buttocks. In any case, I suspect you'd have time to get them out of the middle east before the conflagration erupted. I'm not actually sure that Ahmenadijean is that thick headed - he seems to have a remarkable innate grasp of propaganda operations.
 
#9
Seems to boil down to having an unstable form of energy - nuclear fission - under the imperfect control of an equally unstable, volatile regime.

Not the stuff of which dreamless sleep is made . . . . .
 
#10
It seems to me you have a good argument for a nuclear Iran. After all, it is a clean energy source, right? That's what we are told here in American by the cabal of power companies. And the only supposed scientific evidence which does not lie seems to conclude the increase of iodine intake is the reason for the rise in particular types of cancer mentioned.

Iran was previously an iodine deficient area, but ~12 years ago, the government instituted a nation wide iodine supplementation program.[22] The result of our study is in accordance with other recent studies on the incidence of thyroid carcinoma in Iran, showing a high rate of papillary carcinoma and a low rate of follicular carcinoma.[18] Previous studies have shown that the most prevalent histology in an endemic goiter region is follicular,[5],[23] but if we consider that for ~12 years salt has been iodinized in this region, resulting in a decrease in the prevalence of thyroid goiter,[24] the increase in the incidence of papillary carcinoma can be explained.
 
#11
A nuclear Iran will make life very - exciting I think. How many countries would convert to Islam to avoid being nuked ? Quite a few I suspect.
 
#12
tomahawk6 said:
A nuclear Iran will make life very - exciting I think. How many countries would convert to Islam to avoid being nuked ? Quite a few I suspect.
Sir, Soviet union had (and Russia still has) a lot of nukes. But it didn't help to 'convert' capitalist countries to communist 'faith'.

The best way (and likely the only) to solve the problem would be restoration of diplomatic relations between USA and Iran. Big american investments in the country would make developing of nuclear weapons in Iran senseless.

Btw, what would you do on the place of responsible Iranian decision makers? You would continue nuclear program.
 
#13
chumpycheeks said:
I suspect that American rhetoric reflects the Bush administration's growing environmental awareness.
and I suspect you posted that with your tongue firmly in your cheek.

of course we all know DU is perfectly safe, which is why iraq is now the worlds largest; and only, open air low level waste repository.
 
#14
chumpycheeks said:
These people would march their own children across minefields in order to make a point.
It appears your opinion of their "inhumanity" is correct, like us they also possess an army, (which on occasion has faced forces deploying landmines).
 
#15
caubeen said:
Seems to boil down to having an unstable form of energy - nuclear fission - under the imperfect control of an equally unstable, volatile regime.

Not the stuff of which dreamless sleep is made . . . . .
I thought this thread was about Iran, not Israel?
 
#16
chumpycheeks said:
I'd prefer the lip blisters to them melting because of a thermonuclear war between to countries run by foolish leaders and inhabited by the most thick headed cnuts ever known to man.
Their lips wouldn't melt in a thermonuclear war between Iran and Israel - stands to reason - you'd have taught them to 'duck and cover', so at the worst they'd get a bad case of sunburned buttocks. In any case, I suspect you'd have time to get them out of the middle east before the conflagration erupted. I'm not actually sure that Ahmenadijean is that thick headed - he seems to have a remarkable innate grasp of propaganda operations.
Chumpy,

(As I type my journo/walt alarm is ringing loudly in my ear)

I would strongly suggest that to allow the Iranian regime to have any means with which to create a nuclear weapon or dirty bombs is foolish for any number of reasons

a) They are a fundamentally unsound and unstable regime. (and I don't use the word regime lightly)
b) They have a proven track record of little or no regard for the views and sensitivities of the outside world.
c) Their record on human rights makes the Iraqi's look positively charming.
d) They openly and blatantly antagonise the neighbouring states in the region e.g Clear support to terrorism in Iraq, and wanting Israel wiped off the face of the Earth.

I would rather gauge my eyes out with a blunt spoon than allow these lunatics to let loose with a nuclear reactor.

Whatever next? one giant Shia super-state... ruled by the Ayatollah?
 
#17
Chumpycheeks seems to be a sheep lover and I suspect that in the Chernobyl incident he may have lost a ewe or two and so he may not be thinking straight. But as I see it, if Iran has highest rate of cancer in the Middle East wont this accelerate if Iran went nuclear? Therefore instead of discouraging Iran we should be positively encouraging Iran! Let them build nuclear power plants and weapons facilities at the corner of every road! Let them process and sell their own brand of nuclear halva as the end result will be no more Iran.
 
#18
KGB_resident said:
tomahawk6 said:
A nuclear Iran will make life very - exciting I think. How many countries would convert to Islam to avoid being nuked ? Quite a few I suspect.
Sir, Soviet union had (and Russia still has) a lot of nukes. But it didn't help to 'convert' capitalist countries to communist 'faith'.

The best way (and likely the only) to solve the problem would be restoration of diplomatic relations between USA and Iran. Big american investments in the country would make developing of nuclear weapons in Iran senseless.

Btw, what would you do on the place of responsible Iranian decision makers? You would continue nuclear program.
What....a bit like the big American 'investments' in Bin Laden?
 
#19
Provost_Marshal said:
KGB_resident said:
tomahawk6 said:
A nuclear Iran will make life very - exciting I think. How many countries would convert to Islam to avoid being nuked ? Quite a few I suspect.
Sir, Soviet union had (and Russia still has) a lot of nukes. But it didn't help to 'convert' capitalist countries to communist 'faith'.

The best way (and likely the only) to solve the problem would be restoration of diplomatic relations between USA and Iran. Big american investments in the country would make developing of nuclear weapons in Iran senseless.

Btw, what would you do on the place of responsible Iranian decision makers? You would continue nuclear program.
What....a bit like the big American 'investments' in Bin Laden?
I mean usual investments, money invested in Iranian economy. Peugeot's are being assembled in Iran, Japan isvests in Iranian oilfields. No matter what is American position money always will find attractive place to be invested.

It is a right time to normalise relations between USA and Iran. Why not? If the main problem is Iranian nuclear program then the best way to show that it is senseless is American investments in Iranian economy. The Iranians would see that USA hasn't any aggressive intentions because in the case of war the investments would be lost.
 
#20
Mr_Bridger said:
chumpycheeks said:
a) They are a fundamentally unsound and unstable regime. (and I don't use the word regime lightly)
b) They have a proven track record of little or no regard for the views and sensitivities of the outside world.
c) Their record on human rights makes the Iraqi's look positively charming.
d) They openly and blatantly antagonise the neighbouring states in the region e.g Clear support to terrorism in Iraq, and wanting Israel wiped off the face of the Earth.
A) You are correct. They have been ruled by a dictator who came to power by overthrowing a democratically elected leader but with current riots in the streets are likely to be overthrown himself, soon. Oh wait, that's Pakistan.

B) You are correct. They constantly reject UN resolutions and world pressure and continue to suppress people within their borders. Oh wait, that's Israel.

C) You are correct. They detain people for years with no charge, no trial. They torture innocent people and lock up those who dare speak freely. Oh wait, that's the USA.

D) This one you are correct on. They constantly antagonize the neighboring state of denial in Iraq. They remind us how powerless our weapons really are. We can't control them with men on the ground because they fight back. We can't nuke them because it would be years before we could pump oil again.
 

Latest Threads

Top