| User | Post |
iamhiro1112
Posts: 298/487 |
I don't think getting a nuclear attack from terrorist is much to worry about. The materials to make a nke are pretty hard to come by in the 1st place.
From what I can recall, sometime in the 80's I believe a number of terrorists doing various plane hijackings were coming from Iran. So this is obviously a Terrorist producing Place. You obviously don't want a terrorist producing country to have possession of nuclear weapons. I guess there isn't so much that we can do physically cause I don't think we can tie up our army in any kind of war right now. Plus GW's popularity is waning compared to when he started the Iraq war. So he won't have the support for military action like he did before. I guess the only thing that can be done is to continue the pressure on Iran until they crack. It is dangerous for a country to become too alienated. The reason US is so powerful is because we have many allies. Nearly every civilzed nation has some sort of allience with US. |
Ailure
Posts: 8195/11162 |
The cold war did restart now or what? And didn't North korea say for awhile ago that they did have nuclear weapons?
Is there any other countries than thoose two that could be nuclear threats for US? 
Somehow, I just see the weapons is just used as a "protection". Just to not make the big brother of the world to attack them. I doubt that Iran would use nuclear weapons without any reason, especially against a powerful nation like US.
I think there is higher probablity that terroorists attack with nuclear weapons than Iran, and even then. Nuclear weapons dosen't last forever, so old weapons wouldn't have that much of an impact. And they're aren't easy to do... so if terrorists would do a bomb. It would be a dirty one...
And well, it's the next president issue to payback the costs. Not Bush, right?  |
Heron Ctesibius
Posts: 1/3 |
We can only hope that he wouldn't try anything stupid. If the Bush Administration has any reason (unfortunately they don't) they will see that Ayatollah Khomeini would never use any nuke that his country may produce. I don't know if anyone else has watched him speak, but I saw his address to his Air Force to commemorate the 26th anniversary of the Iranian Revolution. He talked about his why he believed that Iran was better under a single powerful ruler(him) than under the peoples' rule. He cited multiple examples such as the French Revolution leading to the rule of Napolean(apparently not seeing himself as Napolean, but the all powerful ruling figure that will prevent the rule of a dictator). He justifies his rule to the people in a way that will suit his needs. I believe that he a sensible man that would never resort to nuclear weapons. He's just another Catherine the Great. He nows what's right, but is not willing to give up power. The people of Iran are also sensible people. Despite how often "Death to America" is said in Iran, when it comes down to it Iranians are only opposed to the American government, not the people. I heard a news reporter state that she was attending an anti-American rally in Iran (in which they were burning American flags, etc) and she talked to one of the men participating in the rally. He asked her what country she was from and she responded "America". He told her exactly what I just said, "the majority of Iranians aren't really against Americans, just the government." She also said that during her entire visit she felt completely safe. It would due the Bush administration much more harm to go to war with Iran than just to leave them alone. If Bush wants to cause change in Iran the solution would be to show them what a real election can be in Iran. Another example of when violence from an external power is not the answer. |
Gavin
Posts: 508/799 |
Originally posted by Colin
Oh, they could do something along those lines without getting directly involved, but it's still pretty risky.
I can't see a full-scale invasion though. Bush's legacy is pretty much assured with the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, and it's not like the States could realistically afford another war.
you're missing the point. His foreign policy team is made up of some very staunch convservtives with some very specific views of how the world should work. This cabinet, more than any other, is willing to act to protect what it sees as the moral integrity of the world. Frankly i could see members of his team, especially those like Wolfowitz, giving precedent to The Project for the New American Century (which many Bush cabinet members are involved in) and the ideals and actions that would logically follow. |
MathOnNapkins
Posts: 1475/2189 |
darn tooting. yee haw |
alte Hexe
Posts: 3092/5458 |
They're already in debt, why not dive a little deeper? They don't have to pay anyone back as the current economic super-power on a divine crusade. |
Colin
Posts: 7001/11302 |
Oh, they could do something along those lines without getting directly involved, but it's still pretty risky.
I can't see a full-scale invasion though. Bush's legacy is pretty much assured with the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, and it's not like the States could realistically afford another war. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 3090/5458 |
Inability to take action? The president doesn't need to institute a full scale siege on Tehran. That would be horrifyingly stupid. Now, to incite a "people's army" into "revolution" for "liberty"...That's the US's usual weapon of subjugation. |
BlackDays
Posts: 58/77 |
That's true, and Iran knows it is. They might take advantage of Bush's inability to take any real action.. |
Colin
Posts: 6994/11302 |
Bush doesn't have much time to TAKE military action against Iran in the first place, especially with Iraq still not a settled issue yet.
If nothing happens within a year, then nothing probably will happen. Second-term presidents don't have that long to make major decisions. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 3086/5458 |
Russia will stay neutral. If Iran has the bomb, the US will have taught Middle Eastern nations an important lesson. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. |
BlackDays
Posts: 57/77 |
I'm sure that those of you who watch CNN are already aware that Iran is developing nuclear technology which could very well be used in the development of nuclear weapons. Several countries in Europe have joined with the United States is putting pressure on Iran to stop its development of these technologies. The U.S. has also put pressure on Iran's partner in the matter (Russia) to stop providing nuclear fuel to Iran and stop cooperation with Iran on this program.
Bush said that there would probably be no military action against Iran, but will not rule out the option completely. He said on Tuesday, "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table." Iran has said that not only would an attack by the United States would fail, they would successfully repel it. Now does this mean that Iran is comfortable with the idea of war with the United States? If Iran goes to war with the U.S., will Russia join them?
Here are the links to some articles that discuss this matter on CNN.com:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/18/iran.russia/
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/08/iran.nuclear.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/02/10/iran.nuclear.reut/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/22/bush.iran.ap/index.html
I would like to know what some of you think of the matter... what do you think the outcome of a war with Iran would be? Do you think an actual Nuclear War could be in the not-so-distant future? |
