What's The Reason a Country Would Want a Deliverable Nuclear Device???

37 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
Why do countries try so hard to get one?

The Indians neglected their people for another 10 years while they acquired the bomb.

Pakistan's leader once declared something to the effect of ...

we will eat grass until we get nuclear capabilities.

Why???


TL
  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
    I think the real question is why do we allow these idiots to come into power?
    By we I mean all the citizens of this world and by idiots I mean any leader who has or wants nukes.
    Signature

    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
    Getting old ain't for sissy's
    As you are I was, as I am you will be
    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218604].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

      I think the real question is why do we allow these idiots to come into power?
      By we I mean all the citizens of this world and by idiots I mean any leader who has or wants nukes.


      Are you saying that anyone with nukes is an idiot??


      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218612].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Are you saying that anyone with nukes is an idiot??


        TL
        Yep that's what I;m saying.
        Why you going to shot a nuke off at me.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218787].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
    Because when you get nukes, you can now sit at the big boys table with the other super powers. You can't be bossed around by countries like us any more.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218621].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author locpic63
    Most countries want nukes for safety, that is as a deterrent.
    Locpic63
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218641].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Killer Joe
      From a practical standpoint it deters an enemy from amassing large troop numbers on your borders in preparation for an attack. They amass, you take them out in amatter of minutes.

      Given the idiocy of the Bush administration to enter Iraq under false pretenses one could only assume that Iran, as an example, sees having nukes as the only possible way of guaranteeing their ability to prevail in a stand-off.

      It's hard to fault their reasoning when the majority of leaders elected to head other countries can only come from a pool of pathological liars.

      It's a bargaining chip of the highest order.

      KJ
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218781].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Orator
    Given the idiocy of the Bush administration to enter Iraq under false pretenses one could only assume that Iran, as an example, sees having nukes as the only possible way of guaranteeing their ability to prevail in a stand-off.

    Every war in history has been fought on one false pretense or another, I'm not sure why people expect different nowadays.

    Nuclear weapons provide Iran with a natural counter balance to any attack from Israel or the United States. It also provides them with a rather large stick to wave around the heads of everyone near their border.

    Especially considering Iran's fondness for bombastic rhetoric.

    Israel will most likely attempt to stop them, but it's a big toss up.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1218834].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    After the U.S. helped France get their nuclear weapons ( circa 1960 ) they promptly kicked our military forces out of the country.

    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1223635].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author 2d0k
    hungry for power could be the reason.. on the flipside, it might be that a country just want to protect itself from outside threat by showing that it is a force to reckon with because of the nuclear device..
    Signature
    World News | Hasta La Victoria Siempre! | Website Hosting Cost
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1223912].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Well, the U.S. got the bomb because they heard OTHERS were working on it, and it was seen as the only way to WIN WWII. Russia got it because they wanted to be at least equal with the US militarily.

    Others were just MINDLESS, or had the "ME TOO" mentality. DUMB! EVEN the US can be affected by the use of THEIR bombs, and other countries have even LESS ability to use them, without hurting themselves. And do they even know how bad the fallout can be? It depends on MANY things including weather, land, height, force, etc...

    Frankly, it might have been better if the bomb had never been invented.

    And a country, that is at relative peace, that has to SCRIMP to get the bomb shouldn't have it. You do NOT want to cut corners, and must care for the warheads before they are used. Look at DYNAMITE! It SEEMS stable but, over time, can actually EXPLODE because it degrades.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1223987].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Well, the U.S. got the bomb because they heard OTHERS were working on it, and it was seen as the only way to WIN WWII. Russia got it because they wanted to be at least equal with the US militarily.

      Others were just MINDLESS, or had the "ME TOO" mentality. DUMB! EVEN the US can be affected by the use of THEIR bombs, and other countries have even LESS ability to use them, without hurting themselves. And do they even know how bad the fallout can be? It depends on MANY things including weather, land, height, force, etc...

      Frankly, it might have been better if the bomb had never been invented.

      And a country, that is at relative peace, that has to SCRIMP to get the bomb shouldn't have it. You do NOT want to cut corners, and must care for the warheads before they are used. Look at DYNAMITE! It SEEMS stable but, over time, can actually EXPLODE because it degrades.

      Steve
      Imagine Hitler with the bomb - and they were working on trying to get one.

      Think he would have used it?

      Maybe not in continental Europe, ( blowback, winds etc. ) since he was able to subdue it rather easily with conventional weapons, but it could/would have been used on the U.S. and the Russians.

      If the U.S. had not entered the war, think of the resources of all of Europe ( except Great Britain ) in the hands of the Nazis.

      Then, it would have been a matter of time before the Germans subdued the Brits and then they would have come after the U.S.

      We had to develop the bomb and beat the Nazis to it.

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224133].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Thomas
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Why do countries try so hard to get one?
        Because they are political weapons. Despite all the niceties of international diplomacy, it all ultimately comes down to who has the biggest stick. And nuclear weapons are the biggest stick of all (even though their actual capabilities fall far short of what the general public believes them to be).

        Once you have nuclear weapons (and the means to deliver them against an enemy, which is nearly as important as the weapons themselves), the likelihood of you being subjected to the whims of other nations, even much more powerful ones, drops quite close to zero.

        To take a recent example, had Iraq been a proven nuclear power prior to 2003, it's unlikely the U.S. would have invaded it, despite it's overwhealming conventional military advantage.

        In fact, neither the U.S., nor any other country is ever likely to invade a nuclear-armed nation, or even a de-facto nuclear nation (like Germany, Japan, or Australia; nations that have the ability, technology, and money to develop nuclear weapons in a little as a few weeks, if they so wish).

        In fact, I'd go further and say that even a non-nuclear-armed nation that is closly allied to, or even just in close proximity to, a nuclear power is unlikely to ever suffer invasion by another state either (unless, of course, the invader is that nuclear power! )

        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        After the U.S. helped France get their nuclear weapons ( circa 1960 ) they promptly kicked our military forces out of the country.
        Wrong and wrong.

        The U.S., in fact, refused to share nuclear technology with France. They (the French) developed their own independent weapons programme entirely from scratch because they believed that, in spite of assurances, the U.S. would not actually help it's European allies in the event of a Soviet invasion (of Europe) for fear of retaliation against the U.S. itself. It was accelerated to completion by American intervention in the the Suez Crisis against French interests, something that wouldn't have happened had France been a nuclear power at the time.

        For similar reasons, they withdrew from the NATO alliance. And, since NATO doesn't generally station troops in non-member countries in peacetime, they (NATO) simply moved out of France.

        They weren't "kicked" out.

        And it wasn't done "promptly".

        And they weren't all "your" military forces (NATO is an military alliance of about 28 countries).

        The only non-French involvement in their nuclear programme was when they purchased plutonium from the British who, incidentally, also independently developed their weapons programme because, despite being as close an ally as is possible, and despite the integral involvement of British scientists in the Manhatten Project, once "the bomb" had been fully developed, tested, and used, the U.S. also shut them (the British) out of the loop too (which was a situation that didn't change until after the British had developed their own fusion bombs)! It (the U.S.) even shut out the Canadians (who were as involved as the British).

        Simply put: the power represented by nuclear weapons is such that, once the U.S. had acquired the technology, it didn't want anyone else to have it... not even it's two closest allies who helped them develop it in the first place!

        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Imagine Hitler with the bomb - and they were working on trying to get one.

        Think he would have used it?
        He very nearly did but it wouldn't have ended the war in Germany's favour unless they had the means to deliver it against the British AND the Americans AND the Soviets all at the same time. Because of this, developing the means to do so would probably have been an even greater problem for the Germans than developing the weapons in the first place.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224896].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by Thomas View Post

          Because they are political weapons. Despite all the niceties of international diplomacy, it all ultimately comes down to who has the biggest stick. And nuclear weapons are the biggest stick of all (even though their actual capabilities fall far short of what the general public believes them to be).

          Once you have nuclear weapons (and the means to deliver them against an enemy, which is nearly as important as the weapons themselves), the likelihood of you being subjected to the whims of other nations, even much more powerful ones, drops quite close to zero.

          To take a recent example, had Iraq been a proven nuclear power prior to 2003, it's unlikely the U.S. would have invaded it, despite it's overwhealming conventional military advantage.

          In fact, neither the U.S., nor any other country is ever likely to invade a nuclear-armed nation, or even a de-facto nuclear nation (like Germany, Japan, or Australia; nations that have the ability, technology, and money to develop nuclear weapons in a little as a few weeks, if they so wish).

          In fact, I'd go further and say that even a non-nuclear-armed nation that is closly allied to, or even just in close proximity to, a nuclear power is unlikely to ever suffer invasion by another state either (unless, of course, the invader is that nuclear power! )



          Wrong and wrong.

          The U.S., in fact, refused to share nuclear technology with France. They (the French) developed their own independent weapons programme entirely from scratch because they believed that, in spite of assurances, the U.S. would not actually help it's European allies in the event of a Soviet invasion (of Europe) for fear of retaliation against the U.S. itself. It was accelerated to completion by American intervention in the the Suez Crisis against French interests, something that wouldn't have happened had France been a nuclear power at the time.

          For similar reasons, they withdrew from the NATO alliance. And, since NATO doesn't generally station troops in non-member countries in peacetime, they (NATO) simply moved out of France.

          They weren't "kicked" out.

          And it wasn't done "promptly".

          And they weren't all "your" military forces (NATO is an military alliance of about 28 countries).

          The only non-French involvement in their nuclear programme was when they purchased plutonium from the British who, incidentally, also independently developed their weapons programme because, despite being as close an ally as is possible, and despite the integral involvement of British scientists in the Manhatten Project, once "the bomb" had been fully developed, tested, and used, the U.S. also shut them (the British) out of the loop too (which was a situation that didn't change until after the British had developed their own fusion bombs)! It (the U.S.) even shut out the Canadians (who were as involved as the British).

          Simply put: the power represented by nuclear weapons is such that, once the U.S. had acquired the technology, it didn't want anyone else to have it... not even it's two closest allies who helped them develop it in the first place!



          He very nearly did but it wouldn't have ended the war in Germany's favor unless they had the means to deliver it against the British AND the Americans AND the Soviets all at the same time. Because of this, developing the means to do so would probably have been an even greater problem for the Germans than developing the weapons in the first place.
          Perhaps I've been a victim of American propaganda but I'll have to look into this matter a bit further for verification.

          Germany was working on a long range bomber.

          It looked like a V-shaped plane.

          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226132].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            Perhaps I've been a victim of American propaganda but I'll have to look into this matter a bit further for verification.

            Germany was working on a long range bomber.

            It looked like a V-shaped plane.

            TL
            I forget all the mistakes Hitler made, but basically, they had the jet FIRST, but BLEW IT! As for the aircraft you are talking about, they really had some problems. Even STEALTH BOMBERS crashed because of computer failures, and the computers were needed to keep it STABLE!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226464].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              I forget all the mistakes Hitler made, but basically, they had the jet FIRST, but BLEW IT! As for the aircraft you are talking about, they really had some problems. Even STEALTH BOMBERS crashed because of computer failures, and the computers were needed to keep it STABLE!

              Steve
              yeah, those 1940's computers were pretty unstable.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1227441].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                yeah, those 1940's computers were pretty unstable.

                VERY FUNNY! But whether they DIDN'T exist, or were merely unstable, the effect is the same.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1228031].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author topearn
                  If your country has one, the risk of getting invaded will be much lower cos the invaders will be scared the bomb will be dropped in their country.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1229018].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by topearn View Post

                    If your country has one, the risk of getting invaded will be much lower cos the invaders will be scared the bomb will be dropped in their country.

                    YEAH RIGHT! Do you think the US would EVER bomb canada with NUCLEAR bombs if canada turned evil, had a dictator, etc???? NO WAY! TOO DANGEROUS! And woud canada do it if our situations were reversed? NOPE! Atomic bombs are NOT predictable! The problems with area, fallout(nuclear, political, and other) are TOO GREAT!

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1229478].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                      YEAH RIGHT! Do you think the US would EVER bomb canada with NUCLEAR bombs if canada turned evil, had a dictator, etc???? NO WAY! TOO DANGEROUS! And woud canada do it if our situations were reversed? NOPE! Atomic bombs are NOT predictable! The problems with area, fallout(nuclear, political, and other) are TOO GREAT!

                      Steve
                      actually, modern nukes are very predictable. people think that today's nuclear bombs are like what they see from wwII newsreels, but they arent. low yield nukes coupled with modern delivery platforms have created weapons that can still have a serious kill radius, but minimal nuclear fall out and after effects.

                      Unfortunately not everyone has these capabilities. So while WE may be able to pop a nuke into someone's country and the land still be liveable, the countries that have just acquired nuclear capabilities are still essentially little retarded children with really big bombs.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1233062].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                        Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                        actually, modern nukes are very predictable. people think that today's nuclear bombs are like what they see from wwII newsreels, but they arent. low yield nukes coupled with modern delivery platforms have created weapons that can still have a serious kill radius, but minimal nuclear fall out and after effects.

                        Unfortunately not everyone has these capabilities. So while WE may be able to pop a nuke into someone's country and the land still be liveable, the countries that have just acquired nuclear capabilities are still essentially little retarded children with really big bombs.
                        Unless they provide like NO explosion, they CAN'T be predictable. And are you even sur the US has single warhead low yield nukes? WHY!?!?!?!?

                        Still, as you said, if THEY don't have them, it doesn't matter if anyone else DOES!
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1233373].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                          Unless they provide like NO explosion, they CAN'T be predictable. And are you even sur the US has single warhead low yield nukes? WHY!?!?!?!?

                          Still, as you said, if THEY don't have them, it doesn't matter if anyone else DOES!
                          there are different kinds of explosions, and yes, they are predictable to a certain extent. There are no absolutes, but these arent 'fat boy' and little man' type of dumb bombs that blow nuclear fall out all over the countryside.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1233558].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        Imagine Hitler with the bomb - and they were working on trying to get one.

        Think he would have used it?

        Maybe not in continental Europe, ( blowback, winds etc. ) since he was able to subdue it rather easily with conventional weapons, but it could/would have been used on the U.S. and the Russians.

        If the U.S. had not entered the war, think of the resources of all of Europe ( except Great Britain ) in the hands of the Nazis.

        Then, it would have been a matter of time before the Germans subdued the Brits and then they would have come after the U.S.

        We had to develop the bomb and beat the Nazis to it.

        TL
        I think, on this topic, we are on the same side. Hitler did a LOT of crazy things, so I have NO idea what he would have done. I certainly wouldn't have wanted him to have the bomb though. BTW Attacking GB could have hurt germany. If they were smart, they would NOT have attacked the brits with nuclear devices. The US attack was different, because the japanese were SO far away from everything. I doubt VERY much that the bomb would have been used against germany. Too many allies were there.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226017].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author backhost
    Isn't better to have 1 nuke then 1 thousand military solders?
    Signature

    3 Clicks and deploy 100% SSD VPS Hosting starting @$0.006 per hour. clickcloudit.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1223992].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by backhost View Post

      Isn't better to have 1 nuke then 1 thousand military solders?
      a thousand miltary soldiers could do a LOT and be surgical. just ONE bomb could amke you a pariah, and wipe out your country, and that is IF it works, and you can maintain it, and destroy the enemy 100%.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226008].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    What's The Reason a Country Would Want a Deliverable Nuclear Device???
    Um.....well........what would you suggest for a gift for someone who already has everything?

    Then, it would have been a matter of time before the Germans subdued the Brits and then they would have come after the U.S.
    Holy cow. You're serious, right? Where the hell do you think we got all of our scientists after the fall of the 3rd Reich?

    We were invaded. By some of the best minds in the world. They walk among us.....000errrooo
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224343].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Nicola Lane
    It is all about MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction

    That has to be the best descriptive acronym ever!
    Signature

    I like to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1224396].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author CDarklock
    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

    Why do countries try so hard to get one?
    Nobody cares about countries that don't have the bomb.

    But if they do... or they're close... people start taking notice.

    It's kind of like wearing the "in" clothes during high school.
    Signature
    "The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1225856].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author pjlyons1uk
    I think it is for the same reason that every country that has them won't get rid of them.

    For your information also Hitler was closer to the 'A' Bomb than the Americans with research just he was never given the chance to deploy them, 'Heavy Water' as it was known at the time is the predecessor of the 'A' bomb.

    Another piece of evidence to support that is at the end of the war in Europe the German atomic energy experts where split between the allies and alot went to the states.

    Why 'o' why cannot we not share technology?

    Nuclear energy is the future and by not sharing it we are holding some countries back from progressing. They shouldn't need to 'starve' the citizens so they can research something that has been around for 60+ years.

    I am sure if I googled it I could find the plans on there so why spend years in research?

    Until we as a world start working together we'll never move great leaps forward again.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226185].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by pjlyons1uk View Post

      I think it is for the same reason that every country that has them won't get rid of them.

      For your information also Hitler was closer to the 'A' Bomb than the Americans with research just he was never given the chance to deploy them, 'Heavy Water' as it was known at the time is the predecessor of the 'A' bomb.

      Another piece of evidence to support that is at the end of the war in Europe the German atomic energy experts where split between the allies and alot went to the states.

      Why 'o' why cannot we not share technology?

      Nuclear energy is the future and by not sharing it we are holding some countries back from progressing. They shouldn't need to 'starve' the citizens so they can research something that has been around for 60+ years.

      I am sure if I googled it I could find the plans on there so why spend years in research?

      Until we as a world start working together we'll never move great leaps forward again.
      You ever see STAR TREK? Or SG1? On Star trek, they AVOID sharing technology with others. On SG1, most OTHERS avoid sharing with them! WHY!?!? Well, on SG1, a GALAXY was almost wiped out because carter left out some code SHE thought was worthless! On Startrek, failures caused whole PLANETS to get hurt. BTW on Star Trek, it is called THE PRIME DIRECTIVE! PRIME means FIRST, FOREMOST, MOST IMPORTANT, etc....

      RUSSIA cut corners, and ended up with CHERNOBYL! HECK, the US had a problem with 3 mile island! Of course IT was rectified.

      BTW if they have to "starve the citizens", THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT! ******PERIOD******!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226487].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
      Originally Posted by pjlyons1uk View Post

      I think it is for the same reason that every country that has them won't get rid of them.

      For your information also Hitler was closer to the 'A' Bomb than the Americans with research just he was never given the chance to deploy them, 'Heavy Water' as it was known at the time is the predecessor of the 'A' bomb.

      Another piece of evidence to support that is at the end of the war in Europe the German atomic energy experts where split between the allies and alot went to the states.

      Why 'o' why cannot we not share technology?

      Nuclear energy is the future and by not sharing it we are holding some countries back from progressing. They shouldn't need to 'starve' the citizens so they can research something that has been around for 60+ years.

      I am sure if I googled it I could find the plans on there so why spend years in research?

      Until we as a world start working together we'll never move great leaps forward again.
      we as a world will never work together because everyone has their own agenda.

      when you have different 'teams' everyone wants their team to win.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226661].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

        we as a world will never work together because everyone has their own agenda.

        when you have different 'teams' everyone wants their team to win.

        If hostile aliens from another planet arrived, do you think we would work together??


        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1227076].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          If hostile aliens from another planet arrived, do you think we would work together??


          TL

          I DOUBT it!
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1227109].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          If hostile aliens from another planet arrived, do you think we would work together??


          TL
          possibly. for the planet to work together there would need to be something happening that would effect everyone dramatically. aliens or cataclysmic planetary event..etc.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1227447].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author derekwong28
    For a start, it would help if nuclear weapons do not make veiled threats to use these weapons against non nuclear weapons states. Hiliary Clinton made such a remark in her primary against Iran and Barak of Israel recently said that Israel could laid wast Iran. Nobody can blame Iran for wanting them in these circumstances.
    Signature

    Do not get between a wombat and a chocolate biscuit; you will regret it dearly!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226492].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by derekwong28 View Post

      For a start, it would help if nuclear weapons do not make veiled threats to use these weapons against non nuclear weapons states. Hiliary Clinton made such a remark in her primary against Iran and Barak of Israel recently said that Israel could laid wast Iran. Nobody can blame Iran for wanting them in these circumstances.
      GOD don't get me started THERE! BESIDES, Ahmadinejad won't listen to reason, and threats will only make him want to be able to make even WORSE threats.

      The FACT is that, if Israel is smart, THEY WON'T TRY! They are a LITTLE country SURROUNDED by enemies! The CLOSEST they have come is probably when they destroyed the radars in Iraq. And if either attacks the other, they better hope THEY, AND their allies, are upwind. Granted, Israel doesn't have any allies, in the region, but Iran technically does.

      And the worse the attack, the greater the risk. BESIDES, Atomic weapons are illegal, just like biological and chemical are. If israel uses them, they could lose allies. If iran uses them, they could also see political fallout.

      When chernobyl happened, SWEDEN detected the higher radiation levels, and that was NOT a weapon! That gives you an idea how bad it can be.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1226565].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lcombs
    Iran wants nukes for one reason, and one reason only. The annihilation of Isreal.
    They have zero concern for "political fallout, sanctions, etc.

    There are insane people in positions of power. Diplomacy and political correctness are going to get us all killed.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1231548].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Originally Posted by joanpeterson View Post

    An Indian general stated that it did not matter if Pakistan nuked India because India had so many people that a few million deaths would not matter. Scary that these type of people are in charge of these warheads.
    GIVE ME A BREAK! They can be BIG, efficient bombs blown up high overhead, and maybe have several warheads, and they could effectively wipe out india. BESIDES, they COULD wipe out a higher class more intelligent area, AND the area that idiot general and his relatives are in.

    I wish his statements were publicised over the region, including to pakistan, and that they threw him over the pakistan border!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1233566].message }}

Trending Topics