Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Black Wolf

Iran is almost about to reach nuclear capability

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

http://facebook.cufi.org/2011/11/iran-nearing-nuclear-capability/

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/11/07/idINIndia-60362820111107

Well, it seems as though Iran has mastered the important steps needed to create a nuclear weapon.

Many people are arguing that if Iran were to not only be able to develop nuclear energy, but nuclear weapons, it would be a good thing. If Iran had the ability to develop nuclear weapons, Iran and rival countries with nukes would be less likely to get involved in all-out war. I would be compelled to agree with this, if

A) They have given us back the oil that we've uncovered and

B) Iran wasn't mentally ill

So, should the United States take any steps necessary to interfere with their creation of nuclear weapons? Or should we let Iran develop them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

honestly they're pretty brazen recently, threatening to station ships off the gulf of mexico and all that. If they do nuke anyone then they should be obliterated, but until they do we can't justify an invasion or raids into their country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they do nuke anyone then they should be obliterated, but until they do we can't justify an invasion or raids into their country.
If the facts truly were to show that there is a reasonable chance that they will use such weapons against the U.S. or its property or its interests, then how can it be right to wait?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not going to happen any time soon, but we should wipe Iran off the map. It's immoral to wait until they actually use the weapons. Capability plus threat equals an initiation of force. They should not even have the capability right now, because on 9/12/2001 the Middle-East should have been turned into a nuclear wasteland.

Edited by EC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran has already proven that it will fight proxy wars through terrorist sattelite organizations like hezbollah and hamas. I think the likeliest scenario after an Iranian nuke would be more of the same. I see them stepping up proxy activity to new heights, while using nuclear weapons as a shield. This would be a horrible situation, because world leaders are already too cowardly to deal with Iran right now. Once Iran has a nuke we can resign ourselves to daily rocket attacks in more places than just Israel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the facts truly were to show that there is a reasonable chance that they will use such weapons against the U.S. or its property or its interests, then how can it be right to wait?

I implied this when I meant it is not just to invade them at the current time, however if they nuke/ will nuke someone it would be justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The important question to ask is: How do we know Iran is planning on using their nukes in an aggressive way? It would be foolish for them to even try using it on us or Israel... it would be the last thing they ever did. Didn't we create several fear campaigns about Russia and China developing nukes, only for them to not use them several decades later? Doesn't Iran only want self-defense?

Edited by Black Wolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Black Wolf : Things did not blow up in Americas face in either of t hose two cases. One can argue about whether or not Russia or China were / are actually credible threats, but that is not really the issue here. Just because it worked out that neither two countries have nuked America yet, is no reason to be any less worried about what Iran seems to want to do with any nukes it might acquire.

The facts make it blindingly obvious that Iran does not want just self-defense. And even if it did, SoftwareNerd is correct to question whether or not they are even entitled to this. Given that the government sponsors terrorism , their constant threats against America and other nations, etc.

False analogy fallacy anyway.

Edit : Do not expect madmen that cant wait to die for some "noble cause" ( they think nuking the USA etc would be noble) and get to those virgins, to be put off by the prospects of death.

Edited by Prometheus98876

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The important question to ask is: How do we know Iran is planning on using their nukes in an aggressive way? It would be foolish for them to even try using it on us or Israel... it would be the last thing they ever did. Didn't we create several fear campaigns about Russia and China developing nukes, only for them to not use them several decades later? Doesn't Iran only want self-defense?

You are applying reason to people who are irrational. All they want is death and destruction. There can be no M.A.D. when the people who control the nukes on one side actually are mad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was testing you all =O

but.. I still have a problem with this.

Edit : Do not expect madmen that cant wait to die for some "noble cause" ( they think nuking the USA etc would be noble) and get to those virgins, to be put off by the prospects of death.

You are applying reason to people who are irrational. All they want is death and destruction. There can be no M.A.D. when the people who control the nukes on one side actually are mad.

This seem like the goals of Al Qaeda.. not Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That or the general sort of thing *Islam* preaches and which in any case many of these sorts of people are totally fine with anyway. Not just actual terrorists in Al Queda, but these sorts of [violent] religous extremists.

Edited by Prometheus98876

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That or the general sort of thing *Islam* preaches and which in any case many of these sorts of people are totally fine with anyway. Not just actual terrorists in Al Queda, but these sorts of [violent] religous extremists.

You can't just a country's foreign policy motives based on what their religion says - you have to have more than that. Anyone can claim to be of a certain religion, and totally ignore the passages, or even fundamentals of the religion. It seems that most of the violence done on Iran's part has been ethnic, not religious. That's still not a case for allowing them to develop nukes, of course.

Orly. Ever read any quotes from Iran's leader?

Just to be clear, we're not talking about Ahmadinejad, are we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, when a country is ruled by insane religious zealots, zealots that subscribe to a religion which calls for this very sort of thing : it is reasonable to assume that they will not be worried by the fact that certain of their actions are suicidal. Especially when some of these people openly express the willingness to die for such causes. Sure, it is not a reason on its own not to *allow* them nukes. Never said it was. It is however a reason to think that they will not necceasirly be put off by the prospect of being destroyed.

Edited by Prometheus98876

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, we're not talking about Ahmadinejad, are we?

Yeah. I just didn't want to trying spelling that name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahmadinejad is an asshole, I don't think most people would argue against that. But does he really speak for Iran? Yeah, he's the president, but he really doesn't even have that much power. He doesn't control Iranian nuclear strategy, or foreign policy. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the guy that's in charge. Ahmadinejad isn't even the -2nd- most powerful person in the country, more like the 14th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, when a country is ruled by insane religious zealots[...]

This is an allusion to Ahmadinejad, who I'll agree is insane for the purposes of this discussion. But he isn't the real leader of Iran, Khamenei and the ruling religious counsel are. It remains to be seen whether or not they are as stupid or insane as Ahmadinejad appears to be. Regardless, I don't personally think it likely that Iran will use a nuke. Why invite destruction when you can use your nuclear sheild to step up your proxy wars (especially now that your 1979 Iranian model is sweeping the region)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, that is true, he is only nominally the leader and the other guys opinions are not as entirely clear. But I think that it is pretty reasonable to assume that they are fundementally in agreement here. Given the chances to do some of the stuff the "President" claims to want to do , I think that they will be pretty happy to go along with it. Why should we take the risk , assuming it is a credible threat and we can do anything about it though? I think someone would be insane to take that risk in that context.

Hell, I would not trust the stragetic issues ( like the anti-nuke shields ) to do much to stop them trying. Certainly if they were to bomb say ..Isreal or other allies of America.

Edited by Prometheus98876

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. But he isn't the real leader of Iran, Khamenei and the ruling religious counsel are. It remains to be seen whether or not they are as stupid or insane as Ahmadinejad appears to be.

Does this point matter when their religion is militant Islam?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahmedinejad could not have become the president of Iran without the approval of the mullahs as they approve every name on the ballot.

I can't imagine they'd pick someone that they considered nutty. So if Ahmedinejad is nutty, he must not be too different from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahmedinejad could not have become the president of Iran without the approval of the mullahs as they approve every name on the ballot.

I can't imagine they'd pick someone that they considered nutty. So if Ahmedinejad is nutty, he must not be too different from them.

This is one reason why I said it is reasonable to assume that they are going to pick someone that agrees with them for this role. At least in terms of religous and political fundamentals. Fat chance they are going to pick someone that doesnt agree with them. And if they did, I guess we would hear about more dissent between their President and their wishes? Or maybe not, I dont know.

I just think the logical conclusion is that whoever *is* in power is accurately represented by the lunatic we hear from all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about being a theocrat is this: you have an interest in picking religious extremists as puppet figureheads even if you think they're nuts. I'm not saying that the mullahs will be willing or capable of holding back Amahdinejad if he really wants to use nukes. I'm saying that focusing on that possibility at the expense of more likely scenarios is not persuasive to me (not that I really need to be persuaded). Iran's rulers must go. Allowing them a nuclear sheild is a VERY bad plan, military action is warranted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...