Total Motorcycle Community Forums

-If so, what do you think the positive and negative consequences be?

-If not, is it worth bombing Iran over(and all of the negatives that could generate)?

In my opinion, the most realistic outcome at this point is going to be a large scale strike by Israel. This is the stated last resort and they have a track record of backing up threats. I think it will be a combined ground and air attack, with the ground forces accepting the fact it will be a one-way trip if needed. I just can't see the Israelis accepting a nuclear armed Iran under any circumstances. The Israelis are bold, and if they strike it will be a very bold strike.

I just can't see a good outcome at this point. I know most experts say they won't have a bomb for 2-8 years, but the Israelis won't wait nearly that long. I feel for them, I wouldn't want some guy who vows to wipe my country off the face of the Earth every other day having a nuke. Would Iran be crazy enough to launch a nuclear attack, whether direct or through proxy, against a nuclear armed country? Probably not, but probably not isn't a good defense strategy.

Just think how the complexion of a new crisis in Lebanon would change if Iran had a nuke. Would Iran threaten to use it everytime they didn't like something Israel was doing? Man, that would be one dangerous situation.

Various countries want nukes because it gives them a seat at the head table.
When they have a nuke the world will listen.

I don't think any countries including the United States should have any nukes.

MrGompers wrote: I don't think any countries including the United States should have any nukes.

Well duh!

Well, the fact is that other countries do have the bomb and the world does not need another irresponsible government to have the capability of destroying the world we live in. Russia still has thousands of nuclear war heads and the last three US governments have been unable to get the Russians to dispose of them

i dont care, blow it all to hell, the middle east is screwed. There will never be true peace there. The people of isreal will not back down and will not be "messed" with, the surronding arab people hate the irealies, so there is conflict, its a deab seated conflict with religious bits intangled, i say we step back, let then deal with it, and mind the problems in our own country before we fiddle with them, as for iran having a nuke, if they do, we arnt gonna find it, and if they do, theyd probably strike isreal before us.




JWF

I agree that nobody should have them, but realistically, they're not going anywhere.

As far as Iran or any other country goes, who has the grounds to tell them they can't? The UN is a useless organization, and the US has no credibility or backing from other nations. If you were Iran, would you allow yourself to be bullied? I don't think so.

Should any nation state be run by religious fanatics of any denomination? No

Should any nation run by same religious fanatics be nuclear armed? HELL, NO!

History is full of conflicts based on religions both sides justifying carnage as "the will of God", the difference is mankind has progressed from spears and swords to nukes.

You may not agree with their internal political system and the fact that it's based on religion, but who has the right to tell them they can't have nukes?

Andrew wrote:You may not agree with their internal political system and the fact that it's based on religion, but who has the right to tell them they can't have nukes?

The United Nations and the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty that Iran signed.

Just like my government will tell me that I personally can't own a nuke, the rest of the world can tell Iran they can't develop nukes.

Andrew wrote:You may not agree with their internal political system and the fact that it's based on religion, but who has the right to tell them they can't have nukes?

There's NPT for starters (although in truth India, Pakistan, North Korea and others have made a joke of it).

As for the religious dimension I'm a believer but I also believe religion and government should not be one and the same. Faith and rationality are sometimes mutually exclusive.