Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Thoughts on Iran Developing a Nuclear Weapon?
Telly03
Veteran
I think there is a good chance they are developing nuclear weapons, but not sure what, if anything, should be done.
What do you think?
What do you think?
0
Comments
I also think the main reason they want one and one of the reasons other countries don't want them to have one is that it acts as a deterrent to military action. I don't think the US or Isreal would just attack for oil or whatever abitrary purpose. But if Iran acted in an aggressive manner a nuclear weapon would make anyone think twice about something like a targeted bombing campaign (Libya) or full on occupation (Iraq, Afghanistan).
I don't know that economic sanctions would be effective because they have a strong motivation to get one and they have oil which is in high enough demand for some to circumvent the sanctions.
My prediction is that sooner or later they will get one, the power structure of the region will change, countries will readjust and life will go on.
A rogue nuclear bomb is about the only threat I'd consider giving intelligence carte blanche for. A successful chemical or biological attack would kill at most a few hundred or maybe a few thousand. As tragic as that would be our liberties are more valuable. After all if 4,500 soldier lives, 1,500 contractor lives and a trillion dollars is an acceptable loss in Iraq why shouldn't it be an acceptable loss in our country? A dirty bomb does mostly economic damage in terms of the unusable area. A well placed suitcase nuke though could kill millions.
If Iran does develop nuclear weapons, and we do not do whatever is necessary to stop them, will they just hold them as protection from anyone attacking them? or will they be leaked to the highest bidder to rogue nations or groups as @person mentioned? or will the religeous zeal in the country use them on Isreal? After all, Ahmadinejad did declare that Isreal "must be wiped off the map".
And military action doesn't sound like a good action, so I don't know... perhaps just sit back and watch the human destruction of ourselves pan out... after all, we are all going to die anyways, and the human race can not survive indefinately *sigh*
I'm in the same boat. As 'Evil' as Iran is portrayed (and I say portrayed because I am only going by what our media tells us, I have never been there personally to draw my own conclusions) I always come back to one sticking point. No one is bombing US because WE HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
Who put the USA in charge of regulating what other governments are doing? And how can we decide who can have and can't have what? Especially if WE have it? Isn't that a bit two faced? I can have it, but you can't. Because I said so?
Not that I think it's a good idea for Iran to have a weapon like that. I don't. But it's like, watching the neighbor try to plant a garden in the snow. You know it's not going to grow. But is it really any of you're business? Maybe you can talk to him and suggest something else, try to educate him, but at the end of the day it's his choice. Who am I to go over there, shove my finger in his face and say "No! You can't do that, you idiot!"
Like you said, there are a lot of moving parts, and the truth is the issue isn't nearly as simple as all this. I just think America butts into everyone elses business to much. Then we wonder why we're so hated....
Contain them as we did with the Soviet Union, who obviously was a much larger threat.
Or go to war with them. The problem with this stance is Iran is four times larger than Iraq, it doesn't have an already beaten third rate military (like Iraq did) and they are fiercly nationalist and even those that may dispise their own government in Iran will certainly coalesce around their government and nation to repel us. They will also remember our actions in helping depose their own democratically elected govenment in 1953 and installing the brutal Shah that followed. A bloody and expensive option.
I also wonder if its possible to learn the unique nuclear signature of any refined uranium Iran produces and hold them accountable if that material is used by someone else in an attack. Thus bringing a leaked nuclear weapon into the Mutually Assured Destruction arena.
Iran never bombed any nation as USA and Israel do...
There in lies my point. Well said @Bothi. Thank you.
And to think that the UK (one of your greatest and most steadfast allies) is paying £1.40/litre!
that's 4-and-a-half litres to one gallon. so that's £5.60/gallon.
$8.64 per gallon to be precise.
cheers!
Personally I don't think it was for oil.
A couple reasons the US went to war in Iraq... Iraq was not complying with the cease fire agreements made after Desert Storm. This alone could have been justification, but the selling point we used for support was the Intel suggesting that Saddam had a covert WMD weapons program. Saddam was purposely poking us with a stick and playing games, creating evidence and scenarios, such as denying Inspectors and delaying access to suspect facilities long enough to complete a rush convoy of transport vehicles.. He may or may not have had such a program, but Saddam's game came back and bit him, but it was his game.
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
Ten years of war for what? We as a nation certainly didn't reap any financial benefits from our war in Iraq, though many companies did. We have simply over extended ourselves, spent a lot of money and caused a lot of dead. How many children have been killed? How many people displaced? Was the direct result of this folly the empowerment of Iran? Have we made ourselves more secure? I think power, influence in the region maybe a little payback were our goals.
Would the Iranians also play such games as Saddam? Will we be so easily duped again?
"How many children have been killed?" I don't have that data
"How many people displaced?" Probably many
"Was the direct result of this folly the empowerment of Iran?" Possibly
"Have we made ourselves more secure?" With Afghanistan, yes... With Iraq, probably not
"Would the Iranians also play such games as Saddam?" I think they do... Dictators are empowered when they can stand up against the evil war-mongering capitalist crusaders from the west... makes them feel like a hero to their people.
"Will we be so easily duped again?" Possibly, but I hope not... and our allies would not follow us as easily as they did in the past. I'm happy that Obama is not so quick to lead a charge against Iran over the nuke charges... France is actually yelling the loudest at the moment for increased sanctions.
Yep.
"Dictators are empowered when they can stand up against the evil war-mongering capitalist crusaders from the west... makes them feel like a hero to their people".
Very true.
I still say they can be contained or we can play pre-emptive war with them (yet again) They are not gonna attack us, those in power know at the very least if they did that they would become non-existent. If we attack them first we will be cast as the aggresors, they would gather tremendous support from their people and the Islamic world. We would be mired in a long standing and bloody conflict.
How would you deal with them Mtns?
Our actions now dictate our future consequences.
What kind of results do want?
Having answered that how do we get there?
I would also suggest these people in Iran are people, they do things for reasons-dependent origination- remember nothing comes from nothing.
One should understand a potential advesary, to know what makes them tick ;to understand their motivation. Two things can come from that; You will understand them and as such will be able to fight them all the better should that become a necessity. Or understand them and their motivations and seek to undermine that which motivates them; at the very least if one does not create a friend one may be able to bring about conditions where these people don't want war with you and don't view you as a threat. The latter takes time and work.
"Thoughts on Iran Developing a Nuclear Weapon"?
What should I be discussing here, rebirth?
No ones making you read it or comment on it.
It is in General Banter BTW.
I wonder how Big Money views this threat, Big Money is no longer a US based power, it is now global. All the comparisons to earlier wars are based on *national* interests.
With the US economy struggling, the coffers drained, the workers not producing and middle class merely serving.... will Big Globalized Money even care to "protect" its former bastion?
How much of a real threat is Iran to them?
Would any nation really sell/use such a weapon? What kind of damage would that cause, given the retaliation? Wouldn't that be self defeating?
You my friend, are on a slippery slope....
I have to wonder, like Federica, how any of this comes to play with basic Buddhist compassion and loving kindness. I wonder if any enlightened being would recommend preemptive (or any other) war? I wonder if the Dalai Lama would be in favor of "compassionate torture" like water boarding? I wonder if Jesus would be? Frankly, I'm dumbfounded that anyone with enough interest to read a Buddhist forum, and presumably call himself a Buddhist, could or would allow such thoughts to escape his head and out through his fingertips. I know we're all different and in different circumstances, but perhaps someone needs to set up a militant Buddhist discussion forum somewhere?? It would be a good place to discuss the finer points of compassionate torture and outlaw governments doing compassionate things in the name of their citizenry like illegal invasions & occupations of other countries, etc.... Just a thought.
" Frankly, I'm dumbfounded that anyone with enough interest to read a Buddhist forum, and presumably call himself a Buddhist, could or would allow such thoughts to escape his head and out through his fingertips. "
Presumably?
Im studying Buddhism, attending a Sangha, and putting in cushion time, but your questioning the validity of us calling ourselves "Buddhists"... I'll admit that I'm really new to the studies, so I don't know when to consider myself "Buddhist"
Maybe you could provide a test for us.... You could give us a multiple choice test or an essay to make sure we say the right things.... Then we could earn perhaps a special color on our name, or a star on our avatar that recognizes us as Buddhist, worthy of making comments that fits your idea of how we should be thinking.
Having a discussion about the principles of Buddhism and religion in general is very different from conducting foreign policy.
Buddhism, and religion in general, is a very intellectual pursuit. We all have our viewpoints about "our" religion and religion in general, but none of us knows factually what the truth is. So, to some extent it's a very intellectual discussion. The worst that can happen is that people can get a little overheated.
But international relations (which sometimes lead to war) is not so intellectual. Passivity in international relationships has often led to invasion and war. So has aggression. But when it happens, it's not intellectual at all. It means the deaths of thousands(or in the case of the Civil War -- nearly 700,000, WWI -- 15 million, and WWII -- 60 million...2.5% of the world's population).
And, when it comes to the issue of torture, that can be either intellectual or real. Here it's intellectual, so it's easy for us (on both sides of the issue). Do I believe in torture? No. But I have to admit, I'd make exceptions when it really mattered. If torture were required to find out where a suitcase nuke was placed...sorry, but I'd do it. Principles are fine and are to be striven for, but at what point do the lives of others overshadow one person's principles.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but when one member talked about "playing preemptive war", I assumed he/she was talking about the "leaving all doors open" scenario, rather than actually doing it, in order to leave the enemy not sure of what the consequences will be. I can imagine scenarios where a preemptive war would be acceptable to me. But it's far from the ideal way to conduct international relations.
But, I also have to say to you Telly03, when you make statements such as, "If it goes down an ugly rabbit hole, then kill it", that isn't very Buddhist at all. It shows little thought, no mindfulness, and a total lack of Buddhist principles.
Read the whole paragraph-I am saying they won't attack so there definitely is room to talk.
More:
LittleMighty said:
Iran never bombed any nation as USA and Israel do...
There in lies my point. Well said @Bothi. Thank you.
I agree. We don't need another war. It's strange how this country can roll from one war to the next and not miss a beat.
I call going to war with them:
"A bloody and expensive option"
I talk about the option of pre-emptive war only because that is what some in the world want to to. If you read over all that I wrote you'll see I find this option a very bad one.
Here you broadbrush them in one way, like many people do :
"The difference is that the Soviets were, by and large, rational, and not "religiously" motivated. Neither can be said of the Iranian regime"
You have already created a picture for yourself of what they are. It is this kind of thinking that allows for us to bomb them. Why not because afterall they are irrational and religiously fanatical. Here is no room for discourse.
I wrote this after I read that last comment from you:
I would also suggest these people in Iran are people, they do things for reasons-dependent origination- remember nothing comes from nothing.
One should understand a potential advesary, to know what makes them tick ;to understand their motivation. Two things can come from that; You will understand them and as such will be able to fight them all the better should that become a necessity. Or understand them and their motivations and seek to undermine that which motivates them; at the very least if one does not create a friend one may be able to bring about conditions where these people don't want war with you and don't view you as a threat. The latter takes time and work
I am no hawk, I am no warmonger nor do I live in some ivory tower doleing out my opinions as if it was the end all be all.
I believe strongly in fundamental civil liberties; I belive in your right to live your life, broad personal freedom and choices for the individual. I believe that we should only go to war when attacked and with a declaration by congress. I think the benchmark for us going to war should be set incredibly high. It should be the LAST resort when all other options fail. I am also a Buddhist; I follow the 4NT, the 8Fold and the three marks of existence. Tell me how my earlier stated beliefs are in opposition to these.
@Mountains; "presumably call himself a Buddhist"
One should not presume.
Correct me if I am wrong was he not referring to the thread? if the thread gets ugly then kill it is how understand this.
@Telly03 So we fell for Saddam's games? How easy was that? I really don't think those in power were so naive, maybe the public was. I remember when we went into Iraq, before I was a Buddhist and thought this makes no sense, this has nothing to do with 911. Wars revolve around money or power. Smedley Butler, two time MOH winner and Marine Corp. Major General called war a racket:
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
Ten years of war for what? We as a nation certainly didn't reap any financial benefits from our war in Iraq, though many companies did. We have simply over extended ourselves, spent a lot of money and caused a lot of dead. How many children have been killed? How many people displaced? Was the direct result of this folly the empowerment of Iran? Have we made ourselves more secure? I think power, influence in the region maybe a little payback were our goals.
Would the Iranians also play such games as Saddam? Will we be so easily duped again?
It's pretty anti-war if you ask me and greatly calls into queston our rationals and motivation for war
Mountains mentioned something about killing the thread over what theswingisyellow was talking about. Theswingisyellow reminded mountains that it was not his thread, it was mine. So I stated that if it (the discussion) goes down an ugly rabbit hole (away from the original discussion, somewhere not good) then kill it (the thread)