lovmuffin
Posts: 3759
Joined: 9/28/2007
Status: offline
|
What a dumb ass thread. The title sounds like a tattle tail. Maybe it's no big deal to just let Iran develop nukes to some of you guys but if not what would you do to keep it from happening barring some kind of war like action ?
The first question should be what are the consequences of a nuclear Iran ?
Consequence 1: "A nuclear Iran would be emboldened in its efforts to destabilize the Middle East and export its revolutionary ideology. Armed with nuclear weapons, Iranian leaders would enjoy a sense of invincibility. This could lead to bolder interference in Iraq and Afghanistan, greater mischief in Lebanon and more aggressive support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Tehran also could incite Shia populations in the Gulf States, thus threatening the survival of moderate Arab governments"
Consequence 2: "Iran’s possession of a nuclear bomb would likely start a nuclear cascade across the Middle East, as nations threatened by Iran question U.S. security guarantees and seek their own deterrent capability. Within a decade, we could see the number of nuclear states grow dramatically, as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and others seek nuclear weapons to protect against Iranian aggression. This would spell the end of nonproliferation. As more nations develop their own nuclear deterrent, our ability to control nuclear stockpiles and prevent the spread of nuclear materials to dangerous actors could collapse"
Consequence 3: "A nuclear Iran would itself pose an unprecedented proliferation risk. Tehran already supplies dangerous weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, and might share nuclear materials with radical extremists. The result would be a growing risk that nuclear or radiological weapons will get in the hands of terrorists, who would not hesitate to use them against the U.S., Israel and other allies"
Consequence 4: (And the worst of all) "Some insist we could deter Iran much as we deterred the Soviet Union. The leaders of the USSR dreamed of establishing a global communist empire, but they were also rational pragmatists whose first priority was survival in this world. The hard-line elements in Iran include religious fanatics who speak of ushering in the end of this world by hastening the arrival of the 12th Imam. While few Iranian officials are millenarian radicals, the existence of even one is too many. For such actors, the doctrine of “mutual assured destruction” might be taken as a promise, not a threat. We could wind up in a nuclear showdown with Iran, similar to the Cuban missile crisis, without the benign outcome."
I think Iran is laughing at sanctions. With guys like Ahmadineawackjob senerio 4 is not far fetched though it seems likely Iran will end up with them as we do nothing to stop it and the world hopes and prays nothing horrific will come of it. If we don't want to pray then we certainly shouldn't take going to war with Iran off the table.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/17/cohen-what-to-expect-from-a-nuclear-iran/
< Message edited by lovmuffin -- 11/14/2011 10:10:14 AM >
_____________________________
"Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank and he can rob the world." Unknown
"Long hair, short hair—what's the difference once the head's blowed off." - Farmer Yassir
|
RE: Romney and Gingrich would go to war in Iran - 
Profile
. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread