Saudi Arabia to get NUKES if Iran tests A-BOMB

[jericho]

If this does happen then the Middle East will be an extremely volatile region that would be on pins and needles. Could be worse than the Cold War with US/USSR. I just dont understand why a country like Iran would want Nukes. If used then you pretty much end your own country.

 

I also dont understand why other countries like China and Russia dont stop them. If Iran does explode a Nuke, then the radiation will only travel to Russian and Chinese territory.

 

If Israel does go in a wipe out Irans facilities, then expect gas to be HIGH.

 

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/10/10369793-report-saudi-arabia-to-buy-nukes-if-iran-tests-a-bomb

[UKMustangFan]

I don't necessarily disagree, but playing devil's advocate, why should Iran not have nukes? Why are we allowed to, but not them?

[Getslow]

I don't necessarily disagree, but playing devil's advocate, why should Iran not have nukes? Why are we allowed to, but not them?

 

In the most simplistic terms... "Because we said so." The countries that already possess nuclear weapons, especially those that also sit on the Security Council (I'm looking at you, Russia.) should do everything in their power to stop further proliferation. A nuclear Iran should scare everyone. I'm worried enough that the most recent nuclear nations, India and Pakistan, don't share our fear of the bomb. Is it fair? Probably not. But international relations isn't always about what's fair; it's about what's best.

[UKMustangFan]

^So more of a "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality? Pretty easy to see why they're not okay with that, right?

 

Believe me, I completely understand why, and for the most part agree with it, but I can also see why countries like Iran aren't okay with it.

[Know It All]

I don't necessarily disagree, but playing devil's advocate, why should Iran not have nukes? Why are we allowed to, but not them?

 

Exactly. Iran is in defense mode, we've been in the middle-east for a long time. It's only natural for them to have their voice heard. They have no power, a nuke would give them mutual respect.

[UKMustangFan]

Exactly. Iran is in defense mode, we've been in the middle-east for a long time. It's only natural for them to have their voice heard. They have no power, a nuke would give them mutual respect.

 

If I'm not mistaken, you're a Ron Paul guy, correct? Isn't that pretty much the crux of his stance on Iran?

[jericho]

I don't necessarily disagree, but playing devil's advocate, why should Iran not have nukes? Why are we allowed to, but not them?

 

IMO Iran should not have them.

 

First we got the A-Bomb to defeat Japan, which was a totally different era and time. Russia developed it so they could compete with the U.S. and not let us be the sole power in the world. Then it just got out of control. (Arms Race)

 

No one has ever used a Atomic bomb since. Hopefully we all learned from what it did to the Japanese.

 

So then IMO why should Iran not have Nukes. Why should they have something like that unless they intend to use them. If one is used it will spread radiation all over most of Asia, which would set off a firestorm of retaliation. How many countless lives would lost to radiation poison carried from the winds.

 

Why buy a brand new car unless you intend to drive it, you don't let it sit in the garage hid from everyone.

[Getslow]

^So more of a "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality? Pretty easy to see why they're not okay with that, right?

 

Believe me, I completely understand why, and for the most part agree with it, but I can also see why countries like Iran aren't okay with it.

 

Absolutely. And it's this endless parade of nonsense so that they get noticed on the world stage while spouting off hateful rhetoric that drives me to my opinion that they must never, ever get the bomb. I wish fewer countries had it than do now, but that ship's long sailed...

[jericho]

I also wish fewer had them (Pakistan, India)

 

Having them only causes more problems for the world community. That is why I can't believe other world powers (China-Russia) won't do more to stop them.

[Getslow]

I also wish fewer had them (Pakistan, India)

 

Having them only causes more problems for the world community. That is why I can't believe other world powers (China-Russia) won't do more to stop them.

 

For both Russia and China, they see countries from the West trying to tell them how to be more open economically or grant greater civil liberties and see it as meddling in internal affairs. They've been so committed to this little routine that they often refuse to take part in any plans that they see as involvement in another country's "internal matters." So they'll get up to the podium at the U.N. and scream about "Western aggression" or "the United States trying to dictate policy to the world" and then sit down and nobody pays attention to their endless droning and we go on about our business of trying to make sure the world doesn't tear itself apart... it's a fun game we all play.

[UKMustangFan]

IMO Iran should not have them.

 

First we got the A-Bomb to defeat Japan, which was a totally different era and time. Russia developed it so they could compete with the U.S. and not let us be the sole power in the world. Then it just got out of control. (Arms Race)

 

No one has ever used a Atomic bomb since. Hopefully we all learned from what it did to the Japanese.

 

So then IMO why should Iran not have Nukes. Why should they have something like that unless they intend to use them. If one is used it will spread radiation all over most of Asia, which would set off a firestorm of retaliation. How many countless lives would lost to radiation poison carried from the winds.

 

Why buy a brand new car unless you intend to drive it, you don't let it sit in the garage hid from everyone.

 

Why do we automatically assume they would use it if they had it? We haven't since WWII. No one else that has them have.

 

If we maintain ours "in case we ever need them (i.e. come under attack)" why should they not have the same right to do so?

Edited February 10, 2012 by UKMustangFan

[jericho]

Why do we automatically assume they would use it if they had it? We haven't since WWII. No one else that has them have.

 

If we maintain ours "in case me ever need them (i.e. come under attack)" why should they not have the same right to do so?

 

Hopefully no one would ever attack with nuclear weapons again. But yeah I see your point. If you got a nice car, why can't I get one.

 

Another thing, Iran experiences a lot of earthquakes, what happens when one hits and causes severe damage to a reactor. I guess then we dont have to worry about Iran.

[Getslow]

Why do we automatically assume they would use it if they had it? We haven't since WWII. No one else that has them have.

 

If we maintain ours "in case me ever need them (i.e. come under attack)" why should they not have the same right to do so?

 

First, I don't know to what extent Iran or some other countries share our fear of the bomb and its consequences. But that's not what worries me. What worries me is the command and control structure... or even the maintenance infrastructure. Can we really trust Iran to properly secure these weapons or even maintain them in a safe way? Russia's having problems with monitoring their own weapons and I just don't think Iran has the capabilities of doing this in a way that's not going to be hugely problematic. I worry almost as much about a nuclear incompetent Iran blowing itself up as I do about them using the bomb on someone else.

[True blue (and gold)]

Another thing, Iran experiences a lot of earthquakes, what happens when one hits and causes severe damage to a reactor. I guess then we dont have to worry about Iran.

 

Are you confusing a nuclear reactor with a nuclear bomb? A nuclear reactor cannot explode like a nuclear bomb. The material used in each is different.

[Larry Warner]

Why do we automatically assume they would use it if they had it? We haven't since WWII. No one else that has them have.

 

If we maintain ours "in case we ever need them (i.e. come under attack)" why should they not have the same right to do so?

There is no "should" when it comes to issues like this. Iran with a nuclear weapon is a threat to the U.S. and its interest. We have the power to stop it from happening. Therefore, in our interest, it is a no-brainer. Since we have stealth technology, shouldn't they???? Come on. This is about the haves insuring that their enemies aren't able to pose a serious threat.

Edited February 10, 2012 by plainspoken