Kingdom Wants Nukes Now Too! And So It Begins...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

How is attacking NK 'anti-war'? Look to your own definitions.....

I never said I wanted a war with North Korea.

Only that it would have been more logical and justified than Iraq.

Big difference between saying I want and support it than saying it would have been more logical and justified.

Also there is being Anti war and being a pacifist.

You can be anti war and still support a war you think is a threat to your country's national security.
Iraq was NOT a threat to my country.
North Korea? I dont know, I havent decided.
Iran? Not yet.

Not all way are the same. Anyone that thinks that is a idiot.

Im anti war in the sense I don't think the west should be stomping round the world in half cocked wars based on flimsy evidence like Iraq.
But I understand wars such as WW2 ect were needed as they were for DEFENSE.

And you do another of your annoying deflecting habits. You take one little bit of my post and spin it into a off topic deflection without addressing the rest of my post.

a reply to: beezzer

I'm still not clear on the assertion that they HAVE to test a nuclear weapon prior to it's use.

Be pretty silly to not test it and it explodes over their own continent or worse actually lands on the target only for a stick with a hanky popping out that says "boom"...

Hyperbolic, quite...

Nevertheless, quite apt in the overall context of a piss poor crater as opposed to an irradiated no go zone with a 12 mile radius.

Once Iran does have a nuclear weapon, then it'd be too late to stop them. Who wants to attack a country with a nuclear capability?

& now with the shoe on the other foot...

"They will attack us if we don't have them"..."Fair enough, let's build them"...



What right, I guess is the term, does Israel, or anyone else, have to demand how a sovereign nation works?




The following will always be my favourite analogy to put to Americans...

Your neighbours are armed gang members... Crips (Ziorael) one side, Bloods (Sunni Pakistan) the other side...

Along comes an extremist Christian, from two streets away, also armed (US)...

They say you (Iran) cannot arm yourself despite who your neighbours are and despite their rhetoric...




Do you say;
A) Ok.
B) Piss Off.
C) Let's work something out we can all agree to.



Iran chose (C)!

a reply to: crazyewok

Deflection again..LOL. Your gambit, not mine. I've never mentioned NK. That's your deflection, not mine.

I would prevent a virtually inevitable nuclear war by keeping the ME from going nuclear. This thread points out that inevitability. far faster than you or I thought was going to occur.

This announcement by the Saudis may be the best thing that's come out of the ME in a good while...IF it wakes the world up to the likelihood of ME nuclear proliferation and the consequences that could result.

That's the lesson in this thread. One that you completely ignore in your posts....HENCE DEFLECTION...

originally posted by: beezzer

I'm still not clear on the assertion that they HAVE to test a nuclear weapon prior to it's use.

Nukes are not simple bombs.

You have to test the design.
There are so many things they could get wrong.

If they don't test it they run a huge risk of creating a line of multi billion dollar duds.

Your a clever bunny Breezer. Don't just take my word but ask anyone with any physics or weapon design background.

I only have college level physics and Im only a simple biologist but even I know Nuclear bombs are not simple devices but very very very complex devices.

originally posted by: beezzer
America and Russia and Pakistan and India and the UK and France etc all have and develop nuclear weapons, yet they don't test those.

Yes we all have.

We did extensive testing right up to 1991's above ground and underground.
We test less because we have decades of experience.

Iran have none.

originally posted by: beezzer
Once Iran does have a nuclear weapon, then it'd be too late to stop them. Who wants to attack a country with a nuclear capability?

No as you don't go from a text to having dozens of working Nuclear bombs.

First you have to assume the test works. Look at North Korea first test, it was a bit of a flop. And they had to go back to drawing boards and I think it was three years before there next test.

If the test works then you have to make the bombs. And Nuclear bombs as I said are not easy to make. Especially in a third world country with sanctions.

After a test it would likely take 3-6 months to have there first actual weapon. And the would be lucky to have one or two.

Even the USA did not go from tests to hundreds of nukes overnight.


USA could begin strikes on Nuclear production targets within 24 hours. Iran is not going to go from tests to dozens of ICBM capable multi megaton nukes in 24 hours

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

Deflection again..LOL. Your gambit, not mine. I've never mentioned NK. That's your deflection, not mine.

Yes you did.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

How is attacking NK 'anti-war'? Look to your own definitions.....

Your words not mine.


And again you address one part of the post.


Are you definitely sure your not a politician? You type like one?

And that's not a compliment by the way....

a reply to: crazyewok

You do realize that even a faulty nuclear weapon that hasn't been tested can cause unimaginable damage and create a heavy loss of life if detonated in a heavily populated area, right?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: crazyewok

You do realize that even a faulty nuclear weapon that hasn't been tested can cause unimaginable damage and create a heavy loss of life if detonated in a heavily populated area, right?

Or it could just go off in a conventional explosion and you just have a dirty bomb. Nasty but survivable.


But why would Iran do that?

spend billions and invest time to risk making 1 or 2 faulty weapons that may or may not go off then use them? Cause that would mean there annihilation but Israel, Saudi Arabia and hell the entire west for possibly very little damage.

And even IF and say IF there untested nuke goes off it wont be in the megaton range anyway. It will be less than 20 KT. Ok that is Hiroshima size. so yeah very nasty. But 2 or even 3 (thats if they even work) and what? There enemy will just be hurt not destroyed and Iran gets wiped out.


Iran would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by using undeveloped, untested nuclear bombs and everything to lose.?

Do you really want another US war in the ME to start tomorrow based on what we have now?
Do you really want to end diplomacy when we still have time?


Would you be happy to send your sons and daughters of to die tomorrow based on the limited intel we have today?


Take a step back. I think people are letting fear guide them here not logic.

a reply to: crazyewok

So you don't even believe that Iran sponsors what some may call "terrorism"?

a reply to: crazyewok

Just to add any country that puts effort and money into creating nuclear weapons wont just take a half arsed approach and not test them and risk production of duds.

If Iran is going nuclear they will do it right.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: crazyewok

You do realize that even a faulty nuclear weapon that hasn't been tested can cause unimaginable damage and create a heavy loss of life if detonated in a heavily populated area, right?

A faulty nuclear weapon that hasn't been tested won't even detonate. It's not like a pile of dry wood and you're trying to test which spark is enough to make it ignite. And it's not like an unstable explosive like nitroglycerin, where even accidentally shaking it too much can make it explode. It's more like a complex Rube Goldberg machine that won't work until every convoluted step is working right.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: crazyewok

So you don't even believe that Iran sponsors what some may call "terrorism"?

Maybe.

I dont really know as quite frankly the organizations that they supposedly sponsor are focused on Israel and seeing as I don't live there and they haven't threatened me in the UK so I honestly haven't taken much of a interest in them.
so I dont want to comment either way

But ok lets say they probably are.

But they would not give Hamas or whoever a faulty nuke

Come on that would be outright stupid.

If Hamas set a nuke of in Israel all it will do is piss Israel off and Iran would get the blame and a million conventional bombs and maybe a Israeli nuke or two would fall on Iran within the day.


Giving a dodgy nuke or two to a terrorist group makes no sense.

It wont destroy your enemy just cause a 9/11 style attack that will grantee your destruction.


Think of it this way. Would the USA give Ukrainian militia nukes? Or would they give the kurds a nuke?

They might support them but no way in hell would they want to give them that sort of firepower.

"Glass or Plastic... Glass or Plastic?!?!?"



Truly a lesson, in nuclear weapons!

a reply to: beezzer

One mans Terrorists are another mans Terrorists, I mean,freedom fighters. It's that whole matter of perspective.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

a reply to: crazyewok


So Iran, in your opinion, doesn't have a nuclear program, will never have a nuclear program, but even if they did, they would never get away with it because they have to test all their weapons first and that even a faulty nuclear weapon would not cause any damage, and that they would never give terrorist groups nuclear weapons because that would be stupid and terrorist groups and politicians aren't stupid.

Do I have this right?

What you guys don’t understand is that ALL the sides are crazy

Iran, Israel, America, NATO, EU, Pakistan, ETC., ALL OF EM!


You criticize the Arabs who want to go nuclear while the US is the only country that actually used a bomb on live human beings….so whose is the real crazy one?

"So it begins" you say

IT ALREADY HAS BEGUN

THE CAT HAS BEEN OUT OF THE BAG SINCE THE US DEVELOPED THIS MONSTROSITY IN 1945!

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: beezzer

One mans Terrorists are another mans Terrorists, I mean,freedom fighters. It's that whole matter of perspective.

Im going to go down that route.

But I stand by my comment in that Iran would not give a terrorist group they are suspected of being linked too a nuke.
Especially a untested one.

All it will do is piss of Israel or the Saudis or both and guarantee Iran destruction.

There would be absolutely nothing to gain by such action any more than than what the USA would gain by giving the Kurds a nuke. Just a big bang and massive international backlash.

a reply to: crazyewok

Let me ask you something.

Do you believe that governments ruled by a religious theocracy are rational?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: enlightenedservant

a reply to: crazyewok


So Iran, in your opinion, doesn't have a nuclear program, will never have a nuclear program, but even if they did, they would never get away with it because they have to test all their weapons first and that even a faulty nuclear weapon would not cause any damage, and that they would never give terrorist groups nuclear weapons because that would be stupid and terrorist groups and politicians aren't stupid.

Do I have this right?

Mostly



So can I ask you?

You would drop talks go to war next week based on what a bunch of politicians and faux news say even though they lied about Iraq and said the exact same things and it turned out false and the words of Saudi Arabia, the same country that stones women and beheads people. Even though it would be national suicide for Iran to give nukes to terrorist groups and would make absolutely no sense.
its that right?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: crazyewok

Let me ask you something.

Do you believe that governments ruled by a religious theocracy are rational?

Iran's not a nice place but its more rational than most ME country's.

And being a religious theocracy might make you dangerous but not by default stupid.

Iran still operates by some rational thinking or it would be a mess like Taliban Afghanistan or ISIS territory.


They are a nation. Nations don't just commit suicide by giving terrorist that are known to linked to them nukes.

Why would they do that? There would be absolutely no purpose.

1 or 2 nukes (thats if they even go off) wont destroy you enemy's, just piss them off.

Irans still run by politicians. Politician may be stupid but they also like there riches and comfort. Giving a terrorist group nukes will just get them all killed or at the very least make them lose there nice comfortable lives. Any fool could work that out.

a reply to: crazyewok

I don't trust the US government.

I know you don't trust the UK government.

Why in the hell would I or you even consider trusting any other government?

I know your views (as they have related to religion on ATS) on theocracies. Yet you are willing to trust a religious] theocratic government?

I guess there's a dichotomy going on here that I'm having a hard time getting my head around.