| Welcome to No Mercy 4 Life. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| CNN Quick Vote | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 9 2008, 04:53 PM (3,524 Views) | |
| TheEyebrow | Mar 7 2012, 12:40 PM Post #101 |
![]()
NM Headliner
|
Nobody I know has stated an opinion thinking an attack on Iran would end the program for good. Many people I've read think an attack on Iran would only delay their nuclear program for a couple years while focusing the country's attention on the need for a nuke as well as galvanizing support for the regime. This last part I see as most dangerous as it is the Green revolution that is most likely to force reform in Iran and their credibility hinges on not being influenced by Westerners. Further, we have the moral high ground without an attack. If we attack now and they have to restart their nuclear ambitions, it just means in 10 years they'll have a program that nobody can find or attack because it's underground, while China/Russia continue to support them because now they're a victim. If they continue their current path, lying to inspectors, then come out with a bomb they'd been denying all this time, China/Russia might finally see them as more of a threat and support sanctions and other forms of pressure. I want to avoid a nuclear-armed Iran too, but I think the best way is to NOT attack. |
-----The Eyebrow-----![]() | |
![]() |
|
| El Creepo H | Mar 7 2012, 04:07 PM Post #102 |
![]()
Smackdown Board President
|
Here's something that kind of shocked me... don't India and Pakistan have nukes? Don't they hate each other (even to the degree of Israel/Iran)? I think there is something to this that needs to be looked into. |
| "Those who matter don't mind and those who mind don't matter" | |
![]() |
|
| TheEyebrow | Mar 7 2012, 04:32 PM Post #103 |
![]()
NM Headliner
|
Oh absolutely. One of the MAIN reasons Pakistan has been covertly aiding Afghanistan and supported the Taliban is because of a fear that Indian influence in Afghanistan would grow and thus surround Pakistan on both sides. Many, including me at this point, think Pakistan would rather Afg be unstable than be friends with India. This is my main argument for why the US should never give up nukes totally. A lot of the arguments I hear for getting rid of nukes seems based on the old geopolitics where nukes were really about US and Russia, where theoretically all nuclear threats would disappear if both of us got rid of ours. But as it is now, there are non-American-initiated nuclear buildups, the Pakistan/India one being primary, the Israel/Iran one now growing. There will always be conflicts that lead to the nuclear edge, and if all the responsible countries get rid of theirs, it means these irresponsible hot spots will be far more relevant and influential. Imagine if Pakistan had a nuke and we'd taken apart our program so it could be years before we built a new one (I don't know if it would take years, I'm just hypothesizing). That'd suck. In some sense it's added a layer of stability in that there were wars in 1947, 1965, and 1971 (When Bangladesh left Pakistan and Wiki says 2-3 million were killed) but once India got the bomb in 1974, there was only the Kargil War in 1999 and it was only like 1000 people killed. So the nuclear deterrent strategy seems to have some effect. Unfortunately Pakistan is the worst when it comes to proliferation and gave their technology to North Korea (and who else). |
-----The Eyebrow-----![]() | |
![]() |
|
| TheEyebrow | Mar 8 2012, 05:06 PM Post #104 |
![]()
NM Headliner
|
To be fair I just read an article by someone in Foreign Affairs thinking an attack could totally dismantle the Iran program. The basic argument was 1) Israel attacked Iraq and Syria's nuke programs in the past and they never recovered 2) If the US told Iran it was just about the nukes and not regime change, Iran might restrain their response in fear of a larger attack 3) The citizens might get angry at the regime for inviting an attack, as the regime is already as extreme as it can get, so an attack wouldnt change opinion much 4) We've been able to find secret Iran spots before, we could do it again if they rebuilt, plus they'd have to get all new nuclear material, which is difficult 5) If Iran builds up, it's almost guaranteed Saudi Arabia would too and possibly Egypt, who are rivals with Iran, and this would lead to a dangerous triangle of Israeli/Arab/Iranian nukes. If I saw more evidence that Iran would give up their attempts to rebuild a nuke and that an attack wouldn't deter a possible democratic revolution, I might be for it. I still don't know though, there are always so many unintended consequences. If we hadn't been talking about it for years it might even be easier just doing it quickly and quietly, but that's gone. |
-----The Eyebrow-----![]() | |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · News & Politics · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic | 9:11 AM Jul 11 |
Find more zetaboards themes at InkDropStyles.com








