Iran & nuclear weapons

What do you think about the world?
Post Reply
User avatar
Xorian
Gets Around
Gets Around
Posts: 242
Joined: July 3, 2002, 6:07 pm

Iran & nuclear weapons

Post by Xorian »

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast ... index.html

Iran vows to defend nuclear facilities from attack
(CNN) -- Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazzi said on Tuesday that Tehran would "react" militarily if Israel were to launch an airstrike against any of its nuclear facilities.

"We don't use our capabilities as first user, but it is defensive and we would react to it," he told CNN.

Asked what he meant by "react," Kharazzi said, "You have to wait and see."

Kharazzi made his comments after being asked how Iran would respond if Israel were to conduct an attack on its facilities, similar to when Israel bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility in 1981.

Israel has given no indication that it would take such an action against Iran.

In the interview, Kharazzi said Iran is not developing nuclear weapons and that "we are against nuclear bombs."

"It's not part of our defense strategy, and we do not believe that it would add to the security of the country," he said. "Be assured that we do not have such a program at all."

The United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has demanded that Iran suspend uranium-enrichment and centrifuge activities, but Iran has rejected that demand.

There have been longstanding international concerns that Iran has aspirations to develop nuclear weapons, though Tehran maintains its program is peaceful in nature.

Kharazzi said Tehran is cooperating with IAEA inspectors, and he accused the United States of mischaracterizing what is going on because Washington "is looking for its own interest and has got its own political motivation.

"Iran is quite transparent. All the sites are under inspection of IAEA."

Kharazzi did acknowledge that Iran is developing long-range and medium-range missiles that could hit targets throughout the Middle East and possibly into Europe, but he said the weapons are for "defensive" purposes.

"Certainly, we have to be able to defend ourselves. And, you see, there [are] threats these days against Iran. And, therefore, we have to be able to defend," he said, before adding, "And we are able to defend."

In an interview Monday on Fox News, President Bush said the United States was determined that Tehran not develop a nuclear weapon.

"We've made it clear: Our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon," Bush said. "We are working our hearts out so that they don't develop a nuclear weapon, and the best way to do so is to continue to keep international pressure on them."

Bush said he hopes to resolve the matter diplomatically.

"All options are on the table, of course, in any situation. But diplomacy is the first option," he said.

Last week, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said Iran would pursue its nuclear program "whether under supervision or not."

The IAEA urged Iran to "hold back," saying it is in Iran's interest to rebuild confidence with the rest of the world
Now, posting that, im not really interested in the debate : Does Iran devellop a nuclear weapon ? "

But i m more interested in what you guys think, about the right some countries have to ask Iran to stop (if they are doing it) develloping nuclear weapons.

How can countries, who are stocking & develloping nuclear weapons, ask another one to stop doing it ??

It is like having a rifle to defend yourself and try to forbid other men to have one for them.

Im not saying it is a bad thing to try to stop develloping WMD, but every country should do that ( Hi USA, China, Russia...) before asking others to do it.

Im coming from a country which, i think, does not posses nuclear weapon (even if well develloped and probably able to build one, Switzerland is really small , and not in the position Israel is) and was thinking it would be interesting to have other's opinion.

P.S: English is not my first language, i tried to make it as clear as possible !
Xorian the (sometimes) drunken ench

"They were crying when their sons left, God is wearing black, He's gone so far to find no hope, He's never coming back"
User avatar
Akaran_D
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4151
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:38 pm
Location: Somewhere in my head...
Contact:

Post by Akaran_D »

The idea of having any politically unstable nation with a great deal of undistinguished hatered towards another country coupled with the fanaticism and the will to use such a weapon is a bad one (and that includes the US, the Soviets, and China).

Since we can't walk into Russia, China, or whomever else and stop them from developing, we may as well do what we can to stop the nations with the most instability from developing such technology.

It may not be right, and it may not be 'fair'. But when the lives of billions are on the line, then yes, it may be something that has to be done - rarely are world decisions 'fair' when it comes down to it.
Akaran of Mistmoore, formerly Akaran of Veeshan
I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
User avatar
Arborealus
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 3417
Joined: September 21, 2002, 5:36 am
Contact:

Post by Arborealus »

Akaran_D wrote:with a great deal of undistinguished hatered towards another country

Huh?
User avatar
Siji
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4040
Joined: November 11, 2002, 5:58 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: mAcK 624
PSN ID: mAcK_624
Wii Friend Code: 7304853446448491
Location: Tampa Bay, FL
Contact:

Re: Iran & nuclear weapons

Post by Siji »

Xorian wrote:But i m more interested in what you guys think, about the right some countries have to ask Iran to stop (if they are doing it) develloping nuclear weapons.

How can countries, who are stocking & develloping nuclear weapons, ask another one to stop doing it ??
If it were the UN making the demands that countries not develop WMD, that's one thing. If it's just the US (which it will be since Captain Kangaroo in the white house doesn't give a fuck about international relations) making those demands, it's bullshit. It's going to happen, but it's still bullshit and one more reason why the rest of the world views this country as out of control.
User avatar
Akaran_D
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4151
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:38 pm
Location: Somewhere in my head...
Contact:

Post by Akaran_D »

undistingused = undisguised*
Akaran of Mistmoore, formerly Akaran of Veeshan
I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
User avatar
Kilmoll the Sexy
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5295
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:31 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: bunkeru2k
Location: Ohio

Re: Iran & nuclear weapons

Post by Kilmoll the Sexy »

Siji wrote:If it were the UN making the demands that countries not develop WMD, that's one thing. If it's just the US (which it will be since Captain Kangaroo in the white house doesn't give a fuck about international relations) making those demands, it's bullshit. It's going to happen, but it's still bullshit and one more reason why the rest of the world views this country as out of control.
What the fuck is wrong with your reading comprehension?

The United Nations' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has demanded that Iran suspend uranium-enrichment and centrifuge activities, but Iran has rejected that demand.
Now lets see if the U.N. actually has any balls to step up and do anything.
User avatar
Akaran_D
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4151
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:38 pm
Location: Somewhere in my head...
Contact:

Post by Akaran_D »

Are we taking money on that?
Akaran of Mistmoore, formerly Akaran of Veeshan
I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
User avatar
Winnow
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 27728
Joined: July 5, 2002, 1:56 pm
Location: A Special Place in Hell

Post by Winnow »

The UN won't do jack except excite the liberals by sending strongly worded letters to Iran.

Look at the facts.

-Israel took out an Iraqi nuclear power plant in 1981 for the same reasons it's gearing up to take out the one being built in Iran. We have Israel to thank for making our job easier in the Gulf and Current conflicts by doing the world that favor.

-Iran publicly stated it would destroy Israel if it could. (not very subtle! I realize Jihads are called every other week these days but it would still concern me if I was in Israel)

-Israel has the means of taking out the Nuclear facility in Iran. Iran doesn't have the means of doing much in retaliation beside having a few jets get shot down by much better Israeli pilots.

-I'd rather have Israel duke it out with Iran than the U.S. We have a lot of Israel haters on this board so they must be happy about seeing them get into a conflict. It doesn't hurt to have the bulk of the U.S. armed forces sitting right next door just in case though.

A strong Iran and weak Iraq isn't good for stability in the region.
User avatar
kyoukan
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8548
Joined: July 5, 2002, 3:33 am
Location: Vancouver

Post by kyoukan »

lol winnow the international political analyst.

shut the fuck up.
User avatar
archeiron
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1289
Joined: April 14, 2003, 5:39 am

Post by archeiron »

Winnow wrote:We have Israel to thank for making our job easier in the Gulf and Current conflicts by doing the world that favor.
This statement is comic genius. Have you stepped outside of your head? Israel is largely the cause of many Middle Eastern issues.
[65 Storm Warden] Archeiron Leafstalker (Wood Elf) <Sovereign>RETIRED
User avatar
Atokal
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1369
Joined: July 4, 2002, 12:23 am

Post by Atokal »

kyoukan wrote:lol winnow the international political analyst.

shut the fuck up.
Well done, since you are so fond of criticizing Cartalas for one line, off topic, stupid fucking remarks; I must conclude you secretly admire him.

Winnow, very cool analysis. Thought provoking to say the least. If Israel were to take out Irans Nuke facility I wonder how the rest of the Arabic world would respond.

I am hoping the UN has the stones to do this with a coalition of the willing.
HAR
archeiron wrote:
Winnow wrote:We have Israel to thank for making our job easier in the Gulf and Current conflicts by doing the world that favor.
This statement is comic genius. Have you stepped outside of your head? Israel is largely the cause of many Middle Eastern issues.
Israel is the cause merely by existing, so we should wipe them out. The fact that they are universally hated by the Arabic world does not negate the fact that by taking out Iraq's facility in 81 they made the world a safer place.

If they take out Iran's Facility it would make the world a safer place as well and give the liberal shitheads on this board someone else to harp about instead of the US... Oh I forgot this would be the US's fault as well.
Last edited by Atokal on September 29, 2004, 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Atokal
If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
Niccolo Machiavelli
User avatar
Cartalas
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4364
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:39 pm
Location: Kyoukan's Mouth

Post by Cartalas »

kyoukan wrote:lol winnow the international political analyst.

shut the fuck up.
Ill see your two lines!!!


And Raise you one!!

Fuck off Cunt!
Aaeamdar
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 721
Joined: July 8, 2002, 2:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Aaeamdar »

I don't see this as a current US problem. If I were Israel, I would not allow them to complete the facility and I would not rely on the UN to ensure that it did not happen. Its unfortunate, since this will undoubtable result in hightened hostilities (assuming such a thing is possible) between Israel and all of their Arab neighbors, but I am not sure I see much of a choice for Israel. If I were them, I would not trust a MAD policy to work for Iran the way it worked for the NATO/USSR/China.

OTOH, both India and Pakistan are Nuclear nations and becoming so has seemed to turn their respectiv Holy Wars into occasional boarder scirmishes. So who know, Nuclearizing the region might be the first step to peace. I just would not rely on that if I were Israel.
User avatar
Akaran_D
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4151
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:38 pm
Location: Somewhere in my head...
Contact:

Post by Akaran_D »

So, in other words, if they have intelligence that leads them to beleive there is a credible threat to their nation, they should act regardless of the UN standpoint on the matter?
Akaran of Mistmoore, formerly Akaran of Veeshan
I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
User avatar
Kilmoll the Sexy
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5295
Joined: July 3, 2002, 3:31 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: bunkeru2k
Location: Ohio

Post by Kilmoll the Sexy »

As long as it is not Gee Dub doing it, it is ok.
User avatar
Kelshara
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4176
Joined: November 18, 2002, 10:44 am
Location: Norway

Post by Kelshara »

-Israel has the means of taking out the Nuclear facility in Iran. Iran doesn't have the means of doing much in retaliation beside having a few jets get shot down by much better Israeli pilots.
If I am not mistaken Iran has missiles that can reach Israel's nuclear facilities as well. And they wont hesitate to use them if attacked.
they take out Iran's Facility it would make the world a safer place as well and give the liberal shitheads on this board someone else to harp about instead of the US... Oh I forgot this would be the US's fault as well.
Personally I think we need to take out the White House to make the world safer. Wouldn't hurt if you just happened to walk by at the time though Atokal.

Btw, you all preach about Israel having a right to attack if there is a threat to it. And also that the US has a right to pre-emptive strikes if there is a threat to it. Doesn't Iran have the right to attack if there is a threat to it?
User avatar
masteen
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 8197
Joined: July 3, 2002, 12:40 pm
Gender: Mangina
Location: Florida
Contact:

Post by masteen »

Kelshara wrote:Btw, you all preach about Israel having a right to attack if there is a threat to it. And also that the US has a right to pre-emptive strikes if there is a threat to it. Doesn't Iran have the right to attack if there is a threat to it?
Yes, and them doing so would make our job much easier.
"There is at least as much need to curb the cruel greed and arrogance of part of the world of capital, to curb the cruel greed and violence of part of the world of labor, as to check a cruel and unhealthy militarism in international relationships." -Theodore Roosevelt
Aaeamdar
Almost 1337
Almost 1337
Posts: 721
Joined: July 8, 2002, 2:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Aaeamdar »

So, in other words, if they have intelligence that leads them to beleive there is a credible threat to their nation, they should act regardless of the UN standpoint on the matter?
Absolutly. We'll part company on your weak attempt to draw an analogy to Iraq, however. Even under the most wild of dubya's lies, Iraq was never a credible threat to the US.
User avatar
Winnow
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 27728
Joined: July 5, 2002, 1:56 pm
Location: A Special Place in Hell

Post by Winnow »

Kelshara wrote:
-Israel has the means of taking out the Nuclear facility in Iran. Iran doesn't have the means of doing much in retaliation beside having a few jets get shot down by much better Israeli pilots.
If I am not mistaken Iran has missiles that can reach Israel's nuclear facilities as well. And they wont hesitate to use them if attacked.
Iran's best missile is the Shahab-3. That has the range to make it to Israel but I don't believe it is accurate enough to take out a nuclear plant. That's not to say they wouldn't use chemical or biological warheads but that would immediately screw them in the international view no matter what Israel did to begin with.
User avatar
Akaran_D
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4151
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:38 pm
Location: Somewhere in my head...
Contact:

Post by Akaran_D »

Unless, of course, he actually had intell - even if it was innacurate - that he believed to be true and did not deliberately lie to the American public.
Akaran of Mistmoore, formerly Akaran of Veeshan
I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
User avatar
Dregor Thule
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 5994
Joined: July 3, 2002, 8:59 pm
Gender: Male
XBL Gamertag: Xathlak
PSN ID: dregor77
Location: Oakville, Ontario

Post by Dregor Thule »

Atokal backed your arguments... are you afraid now?
Image
User avatar
Akaran_D
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 4151
Joined: July 3, 2002, 2:38 pm
Location: Somewhere in my head...
Contact:

Post by Akaran_D »

He's an ass, he kisses ass, he makes generally unfounded statements about half the time, but once in a blue moon, he says somthing that you can comprehend and work with.
Akaran of Mistmoore, formerly Akaran of Veeshan
I know I'm good at what I do, but I know I'm not the best.
But I guess that on the other hand, I could be like the rest.
User avatar
Winnow
Super Poster!
Super Poster!
Posts: 27728
Joined: July 5, 2002, 1:56 pm
Location: A Special Place in Hell

Post by Winnow »

Great. Iran can fire one or two missiles possibly reaching europe and they start talking smack. I think they'll get the opposite of the reaction they intended as Israel or the U.S. will be more inclined to deal with Iran than less.
Tue Oct 5, 2004 04:37 PM ET

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has increased the range of its missiles to 1,250 miles, a senior official was quoted as saying on Tuesday, putting parts of Europe within reach for the first time.

Military experts had earlier put Iran's missile range at 810 miles, which would allow it to strike anywhere in Israel.

"Now we have the power to launch a missile with a 2,000 km (1,250 mile) range," the news agency IRNA quoted influential former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani as saying. "Iran is determined to improve its military capabilities."

"If the Americans attack Iran, the world will change ... they will not dare to make such a mistake," Rafsanjani was quoted as saying in a speech at an exhibition on Space and Stable National Security.

Washington has accused Tehran of secretly developing nuclear weapons.

Iran insists its nuclear program is aimed only at generating electricity. It says its missiles are for defensive purposes and would be used to counter a possible Israeli or U.S. strike against its nuclear facilities.

"The United States has had, and continues to have, serious concerns about Iran's missile programs," State Department spokesman Adam Ereli told reporters.

"We view Iran's efforts to further develop its missile capabilities as a threat to the region and to the United States interests, and all the more so in light of its ongoing nuclear program."

Ereli declined to say whether Washington believed the Iranian official's 1,250 mile range claim, saying he could not discuss intelligence matters.
vn_Tanc
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2398
Joined: July 12, 2002, 12:32 pm
Location: UK

Post by vn_Tanc »

Europe is 1250 miles from Iran? Who the fuck moved?
A man with a fork
In a world of soup
Image
User avatar
Pherr the Dorf
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2913
Joined: January 31, 2003, 9:30 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Sonoma County Calimifornia

Post by Pherr the Dorf »

Turkey? Probably parts of greece if shot from norther Iran
The first duty of a patriot is to question the government

Jefferson
vn_Tanc
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 2398
Joined: July 12, 2002, 12:32 pm
Location: UK

Post by vn_Tanc »

Well Turkey and Iran share a border so I'd say the new missile ranges don't affect that particular region too much as a range of 4ft is enough. Other than Turkey it looks like Cyprus is just barely in range if Iran fires from their very northern tip.
I'd expect a French/German flipflop into Bush-loving warhawk mode any day now.
A man with a fork
In a world of soup
Image
User avatar
Hoarmurath
Star Farmer
Star Farmer
Posts: 477
Joined: October 16, 2002, 12:46 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Florida
Contact:

Post by Hoarmurath »

This is one of the general subjects that I was reading about in <a href="http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... t=11635">a book I mention in this thread</a>.

To break it down into one sentence, the author divides the world into "the Core" (countries that are, more or less, accepting globalization and integrating into the world socially, politically, and economically) and "the Gap" (not the store, rather, countries that are more "disconnected" from globalization for one reason or another, usually due to unstable/nonextistent governments, such as those typically found in Africa, and governments that are "too" stable, but in a bad way, such as North Korea, Iran, and up until recently, Iraq).

Basically (and I'm doing the story some disservice by trying to make it so simple), countries in "the Core" are okay with having WMDs because they can be trusted no to use them (arguable I suppose). Conversely, countries in "the Gap" cannot be counted on to maintain that kind of control, either by using WMD themselves, or by acting as a supplier to other, less savory characters/organizations.

However, countries in "the Gap", in essence, can't be trusted with WMD (again, serious oversimplification here, but that's the gist), and cannot be allowed to deploy them, or maybe even get close to deploying them.

Other links on the subject:

<a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page ... ml">Review of <i>The Pentagon's New Map</i> in the Asia Times</a>
<a href="http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/">The author's web site</a>
User avatar
archeiron
Way too much time!
Way too much time!
Posts: 1289
Joined: April 14, 2003, 5:39 am

Post by archeiron »

Hoarmurath wrote:This is one of the general subjects that I was reading about in <a href="http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... t=11635">a book I mention in this thread</a>.

To break it down into one sentence, the author divides the world into "the Core" (countries that are, more or less, accepting globalization and integrating into the world socially, politically, and economically) and "the Gap" (not the store, rather, countries that are more "disconnected" from globalization for one reason or another, usually due to unstable/nonextistent governments, such as those typically found in Africa, and governments that are "too" stable, but in a bad way, such as North Korea, Iran, and up until recently, Iraq).

Basically (and I'm doing the story some disservice by trying to make it so simple), countries in "the Core" are okay with having WMDs because they can be trusted no to use them (arguable I suppose). Conversely, countries in "the Gap" cannot be counted on to maintain that kind of control, either by using WMD themselves, or by acting as a supplier to other, less savory characters/organizations.

However, countries in "the Gap", in essence, can't be trusted with WMD (again, serious oversimplification here, but that's the gist), and cannot be allowed to deploy them, or maybe even get close to deploying them.

Other links on the subject:

<a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page ... ml">Review of <i>The Pentagon's New Map</i> in the Asia Times</a>
<a href="http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/">The author's web site</a>
This is dangerous reasoning because it starts from the premises that there is a correct manner of viewing globalization, that globalization is the right thing for everyone in the world, and that anyone opposed to this notion of globalization is both dangerous and wrong. This smacks of idealogical narrowmindedness.
[65 Storm Warden] Archeiron Leafstalker (Wood Elf) <Sovereign>RETIRED
Post Reply